Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY

Motor Industry

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what recent discussions he has held with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders on future prospects for the industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Bob Cryer): This Department is regularly in touch with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders about the future prospects of the industry.

Mr. Dykes: Are Ministers prepared now to set up an official inquiry into the disturbing allegations of corrupt payments in British Leyland?

Mr. Cryer: I understand that the matter is being investigated by the com-

pany through the normal company disciplinary procedures. I understand that the AUEW, the union concerned, is anxious that the matter should be cleared up as soon as possible, but it is no part of the Department's duty to conduct an investigation and the matter is best left where it is, in the hands of the company.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is not a more important factor the fact that foreign importers have now achieved a 42 per cent, penetration of the British market? Does not my hon. Friend agree that we now need something more than exhortation from the Prime Minister to get people to buy British? Do we not rather need curbs on these foreign imports?

Mr. Cryer: In the first eight months of this year, the total balance for car, car components and commercial vehicle components was £727 million as opposed to £595 million for the comparable eight months in 1975. I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety, and, of course, the Department is very much concerned that that level of imports should not be maintained. We hope that in future the British motor car industry will make a much bigger impact on sales in this country.

Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reasons for low productivity is the lack of incentive for skilled men and managers? Is he further aware that over 50 members of the tool-room of British Leyland at Longbridge have written to me complaining about


the erosion of differentials? Surely the labourer is worthy of his hire.

Mr. Cryer: I am surprised at the direction in which some messages are sent these days by members of toolrooms. The Government recognise that the British trade union movement has made an enormous sacrifice this year and last year in contributing to the social contract. One hopes that that sacrifice is recognised by the management side of British industry by improving and increasing the level of investment in industry.

Mr. Heseltine: While on a purely personal basis one welcomes the Undersecretary on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, may I ask the Secretary of State to understand that some of us are surprised that he did not himself choose to answer this critical Question about a critical industry? Will the hon. Gentleman take seriously the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes)? The allegations about British Leyland, about both union and management, are very serious. Does not the Secretary of State think that there should be an independent inquiry so that the allegations may be disposed of rapidly one way or another?

Mr. Cryer: We understand the seriousness of the allegations, but it is not for the Department to give credence to these serious allegations. We are satisfied that the company and the unions are co-operating in investigating them to the fullest extent. I should have thought that it would be better, since they are only allegations, for the Department to reserve judgment in this instance until we receive the sort of evidence that the Department of Trade received, for instance, in the case of Lonrho. When we receive that standard of evidence, we shall be in a much better position to make judgments.

Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that no one in the trade union movement would condone any such things as have been suggested, if they are going on? However, is he also aware that over the years, particularly in the construction industry, the docks and the ship repairing industry, many workers had to go to bosses in order to get jobs and trade unionists were excluded because they refused to accept that sort of prac-

tice? What then did the Opposition do about that sort of practice?

Mr. Cryer: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I should like to reiterate that we would not wish to comment on the particular allegations, since they are entirely allegations and no evidence has been provided so far—[Interruption.] As far as we understand them, no evidence has been provided to the Department. We are satisfied that the company is conducting investigations in accordance with the correct disciplinary procedures.

Mr. Heseltine: Will the Undersecretary think again about his answer, particularly since the Department of Trade set up an inquiry into Lonrho and, therefore, the facts were independently considered? That is precisely what we suggest should happen in the case of British Leyland.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman has taken a long time to think of that supplementary question. Whenever further substantial evidence of this sort of allegation is presented to the Department, we shall have to review the position.

Electrical Engineering

Mr. Conlan: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects to announce the Government's decisions on the future of the heavy electrical engineering industry arising from the report of the Central Policy Review Staff.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Alan Williams): I fully appreciate the need for early decisions on how best to deal with the problems affecting the industry. The CPRS report has only just been received and Ministers will need time to consider it. I can assure my hon. Friend that decisions arising from the report will be taken as soon as it is practical to do so.

Mr. Conlan: Is it not clear to my hon. Friend that immediate action is required to avoid further redundancies in areas of very high unemployment? Furthermore, to avoid irreparable damage to this industry, is it not necessary that action should be taken at once and that a firm commitment should be entered into for steady ordering programmes, including the replacement of obsolete power stations, so that the industry will know


precisely where it stands? Will my hon. Friend urge these policies on his colleagues?

Mr. Williams: I fully accept the urgency of the situation for the industry and the affected areas. Equally, my hon. Friend will recognise that general approval was given to the setting up of the CPRS investigation, and it seems reasonable that we should analyse it thoroughly and effectively. The industry is happy with the rate of progress that is being made. My hon. Friend will also bear in mind that we have to balance the questions of the future of the industry and the public expenditure implications.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I agree that this is an extremely urgent matter. However, does not the Minister agree that the Think Tank is totally unqualified to report on this matter and has shot the whole thing out to a firm of consultants? What are needed are ministerial decisions on a long-term energy programme for the country which has hitherto been unforthcoming. When will those decisions be made?

Mr. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman cannot be so naive as not to understand the complexity of all the issues involved. He must also appreciate that a great deal of analytical work is required before a proper decision can be arrived at. As the implications for several industries are serious, we must carry out a thorough investigation. I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman should want quick answers even though they might be wrong answers.

Mr. Buchan: Does not my hon. Friend accept that this industry is of vital importance to employment in several depressed areas, including mine, and that, no matter what situation we face in terms of public expenditure, public expenditure on this industry is necessary if we are to regenerate British industry in future and to achieve the required phasing forward of the power station programme?

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend is right in saying how important is the industry. That is why we want to take the necessary steps to ensure its survival. As I said, simply phasing forward might not be the answer. It might solve the initial

problem but it would leave a further problem at the end of the phase. Therefore, we want to look thoroughly at the CPRS recommendations and then make our decisions.

Nationalisation

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he has any plans for further nationalisation.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): Depending on parliamentary progress, the Government's published proposals on nationalisation which fall within my Department's responsibilities will shortly have been implemented in full.

Mr. Rost: Is it not criminally irresponsible and sheer lunancy, in the week when the Government have so disgraced Britain that the international bailiffs have been called in, for the Government to bulldoze through Parliament a further nationalisation measure which we cannot afford, which will hinder further the prospects of national recovery and which the electors have decisively rejected?

Mr. Kaufman: Unless the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill is enacted urgently, the bailiffs will be called in to a number of shipyards in England and Scotland and certain aircraft factories. I draw attention to the particular gravity of the situation for Scottish Aviation and the jeopardy in which the future of Hawker Siddeley in North Wales will be placed if the Bill does not go through quickly.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that the turbo-generator manufacturing industry will become a prime candidate for nationalisation if he does not listen to the representations made to him and his right hon. Friend? Why has he not published the NEDO report which shows that the bringing forward of the Drax B power station would save Government money? Why has not that report been published? Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that nationalising this industry is not the only way left to save it?

Mr. Kaufman: Sufficient unto the Parliament is the public ownership thereof. We are concentrating on the public owner-ships of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries at the moment.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that uncertainty has been caused in the aerospace and shipbuilding industries by the Government's nationalisation policy? Will he take a sensible look—even at this late stage—at the position to find other ways of proceeding in a less spendthrift manner?

Mr. Kaufman: That is not the view of the newly elected President of the Shipbuilders and Repairers Association or of the Sunday Times yesterday, both of whom urge the rapid enactment of the Bill.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that had it not been for the nationalisation of the Rolls-Royce engine division in Derby that great company would have gone to the wall and tens of thosuands of workers would have been thrown out of work?

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend is accurate. Instead of the parliamentary process for that nationalisation taking nearly a year—as is the parliamentary process on this Bill—that Bill went through in 17 hours. That is the way the Tories nationalise.

Mr. Tom King: That may be the view expressed in a recent article in the Sunday Times, but it is clearly not the view of the electors of Walsall, North and Workington that further nationalisation is required. The Minister has not answered the Question. He has not given a categorical undertaking that there will be no further nationalisation. Does he not realise—as does the CBI in "The Road to Recovery"—the unique damage that the threat of nationalisation is doing to Britain's industrial recovery?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman should know that in the only by-election last Thursday in a shipbuilding area the Tory candidate was hard put to it to hold his deposit.

Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a further statement about the progress of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill.

Mr. Kaufman: The Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill has completed Report stage in another place and the debate on Third Reading there is scheduled for tomorrow.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the importance of the Bill to the workers in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, will my hon. Friend make a special plea to the Scottish and Welsh nationalists—especially those who pretend to be Left-wing back in their constituencies—to have the courage of their convictions for once and vote with us this week instead of meekly obeying their party Whips by going into the Lobby with a Right-wing ragbag of Tories, Liberals and Ulster Unionists?

Mr. Kaufman: A number of shipyards in Scotland are in jeopardy, and the consequences to Scottish Aviation of the failure of the Bill to pass will be exceptionally grave. It is for Opposition Members who for those reasons did not oppose the original guillotine motion on the Bill to consider whether three months later more delay is acceptable to the workers in those industries.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister tell his hon. Friend that if the Government had accepted the amendment put forward by Plaid Cymru to cut out the ship-repairing industry the Bill would have had a greater chance of going through? Will he accept that the vast majority of people who have anything to do with the ship-repairing industry—including the comments in yesterday's Sunday Times—point out the absolute stupidity of nationalisation?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity later in the week to raise ship repairing. No doubt the House will discuss it in detail. It is for him and his hon. Friends to weigh the consequences for 300 ship-repairing workers in South Wales whose jobs are not in jeopardy with the consequences for 4,500 aircraft workers in North Wales, near his constituency, whose jobs will be in considerable danger if the Bill does not go through.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Managing Director of Scottish Aviation has told the workers there that unless the nationalisation proposals are proceeded with the company will be in liquidation in the spring?

Mr. Kaufman: I would not like to comment upon what may or may not have been said in Scottish Aviation. What I will say with all due gravity is that if Scottish Aviation does not come within British Aerospace within a measurable period the consequences will be extremely grave for the workers there.

Mrs. Bain: Will the Minister accept that SNP Members are listening extremely carefully to his pronouncements on job opportunities? Will he therefore take this opportunity to confirm or deny rumours currently circulating in Scotland that the Organising Committee has in mind 30 per cent, redundancy throughout the shipbuilding industry and the closure of three yards?

Mr. Kaufman: I can deny such rumours categorically. We have not had any report or recommendations from the Organising Committee about the future of shipyards anywhere in Great Britain. Unless the Organising Committee of British Shipbuilders is swiftly turned into British Shipbuilders as a corporation, there will undoubtedly be thousands of redundancies in Scottish shipyards.

Mr. Warren: Will the Minister say how it will be possible to have the debate which he says we can have when we bear in mind that the total number of Lords amendments, if voted on, will take up more than the time he is proposing to allow for such a debate?

Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman examines the proceedings in another place, he will find that all amendments which have been debated and passed there are on matters which have been discussed during the 58 sittings of the Standing Committee and on Report in this House—for example, the subject of ship repairing, debate on which I ensured against querulousness from the Opposition. These matters have now been debated in this House for a total of 269 hours. It is about time the Bill was enacted.

Mr. Heseltine: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is to be no time for a debate, or is he agreeing with the suggestion from Plaid Cymru that a debate on ship repairing should take place?

Mr. Kaufman: If the timetable motion is passed this evening, we shall employ the arrangements that were made last

time in deciding how the debate will be allocated. It was I who last time insisted, with the disagreement of the Opposition, that ship repairing should be debated. I have no doubt that if the timetable motion is passed we shall debate ship repairing and vote on it.

Investment

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied fled with the current level of investment in manufacturing industry.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): No. I hope to be able to announce new measures in the near future to encourage more investment.

Mr. Arnold: Is not the policy of dear money fatal to industry? Since in 1971–72, under the then Conservative Government, the minimum lending rate went as low as 5 per cent., does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a minimum lending rate of 16 per cent, makes it virtually impossible to borrow money for investment in manufacturing industry?

Mr. Varley: I agree that that is one of the factors involved. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it plain on more than one occasion that he hopes that the minimum lending rate will come down so that we can stimulate investment. If we had more support from the Opposition on some of the economic measures we are pushing through, I am satisfied that industrial confidence would improve. The Opposition are doing all they can to destroy confidence and undermine our currency, and they never cease to take the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend accept it from me that British private industry would be in a far more powerful position than it is now if the Opposition were to persuade their patriotic friends to invest in industry, because there has been a strike in terms of capital in that respect for some years? Will he encourage those people to put that money into investment because, although they always talk about these matters, they regularly ask for public funds to boost faltering private industry?

Mr. Varley: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. The


Opposition have been completely irresponsible in the last few months and have contributed a great deal to the present situation.

Mr. Hordern: Will the Secretary of State explain how manufacturing industry is to invest more when the Government need to borrow every single penny which is available in the private sector for the whole of next year? Was not this situation reflected in the weekend Press in articles to the effect that the Government's borrowing requirements will grow by another £2,000 million? Does not that make the Government's industrial strategy a complete and utter farce?

Mr. Varley: That is the kind of comment to which I referred earlier. The Opposition and their friends time and again do not contribute to the rebuilding of British industry but take every opportunity to snipe at our industrial strategy. The House knows about the tripartite arrangements that are being built up through the NEDC. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends not to indulge in consistent carping criticism but to help the country to get back on its feet. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman and his Friends are doing all they can to undermine the strategy.

Mr. Watkinson: Has my right hon. Friend noted that the profitability of industry this year is rapidly increasing? Therefore, does he not agree that it is essential for industry to be encouraged to invest those funds? Does he not think that a prime element in that progress is to bring about an increased number of planning agreements between the Government and industry?

Mr. Varley: I shall be answering a series of Questions on planning agreements presently. We have done a great deal as a Government to help to stimulate investment—for example, in terms of the Accelerated Projects Scheme and some of the other industrial schemes which we have developed. Such schemes are generally of value to British industry. Unlike the hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern), others recognise those arrangements as extremely valuable. It is a pity that the Opposition do not do more to help in this regard.

Mr. Heseltine: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that it is the policy of the present Government that is in ruins and that the Opposition have consistently been telling the Government what they should do? They should cut public expenditure, drop nationalisation and deal with the £11,000 million deficit on borrowing. Until the Government take that action, we shall not see the recovery of investment.

Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman, in common with all his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, is always in favour of cutting public expenditure in general but never in particular. Time and again they come forward asking the Government to increase public expenditure. We have heard such pleas this afternoon during Question Time. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that progress has been made following the disastrous 1973 period when we saw Lord Barber and his right hon. Friends then in Government spurring on the inflationary spiral. The hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties experienced since that time.

Successes and Achievements

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will publish each month a list of the recent successes and achievements of both private and public sectors of British industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): My Department's weekly magazine Trade and Industry regularly publishes details of industrial successes of British firms both at home and overseas. There are sections devoted to new products and technology developed by both private and public sectors of British industry, and I understand that the editor is always pleased to hear of new developments. Copies of Trade and Industry are available in the Library.

Mr. Hardy: In view of the obsession with damaging despondency cultivated by the Opposition and displayed by many sections of the national, if not the local, media, is it not time in the national interest for firmer emphasis to be placed on the frequent and continuing achievements of British industry than is currently to be found in the details given in the


Department's literature? Is it not desirable to see some spoon-feeding so that there can be recognition of success?

Mr. Huckfield: I note my hon. Friend's useful suggestion, and I agree with him that many of the contents of the Department's documents make a far more worthwhile contribution to the image of our country abroad than do certain sections of the British Press and certain speeches made by the Opposition. I assure him that Ministers in my Department and in other Departments will continue to do their best to stress the achievements of British industry. I hope that in laying stress on those achievements we shall be emulated by a similar effort on the part of the Opposition.

Mr. Nelson: If the Under-Secretary will not confirm the success of the public and private sectors of industry, will he comment on some of the worst aspects of the failures in the public sector, particularly on the findings of the special report by the British Steel Corporation last week on absenteeism which discovered that absenteeism figures had reached 28 days per annum among manual workers and at one plant in Scotland 42 days per annum? What action will the hon. Gentleman take in conjunction with the Corporation to try to reduce days lost in this way?

Mr. Huckfield: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not inviting the House to look a little more carefully at the record of absenteeism on his Benches. As I have said—[HON. MEMBERS: " Did you vote last time?"]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not vote—which answers the question interjected. We are going very slowly. Let us try to move more quickly.

Mr. Huckfield: As I have said, the continued denigration, running down and knocking of the achievements of British industrial performance pursued by the Opposition does not help this country abroad at all.

Mr. Madden: What will be the likely impact on British manufacturing industry of the handing over of information to the Germans and Americans about a new British tank development, which looks as though it will result in a number of orders going to overseas companies, as

was revealed yesterday in the Sunday Times?

Mr. Huckfield: That is an interesting question, but it is not one for my Department. I can only suggest that my hon. Friend puts down a Question to the appropriate Minister.

Mr. Tom King: The Under-Secretary talks about praising the successes of British industry. Has he noted the contrast between the warm and vigorous way in which he himself plays a part in that endeavour and the rather more enthusiastic approach which might be helpful towards that very important topic? Since the Secretary of State has agreed that there is an investment strike in British industry, as he tacitly did in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), has the Under-Secretary of State noted that Lucas has just announced a £100 million investment programme and ICI has announced a £400 million programme—an act of real courage in the present economic situation and against the current borrowing requirement? A little more enthusiasm from the Government for the achievements of the private sector would not come amiss, would it?

Mr. Huckfield: I hope that the hon. gentleman will not exclude from the catalogue some of the very large public sector investments which also are planned. If he studies the plans of the British Steel Corporation and of other public sector enterprises, especially the National Enterprise Board which he want to wind up, he will see that in very many areas it is the public sector which takes the lead and sets the pace

Aerospace Projects

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he has yet decided which British civil aerospace projects merit launching aid.

Mr. Kaufman: With the Government's encouragement, the Organising Committee for British Aerospace and the industry are considering all the available options in consultation with possible collaborative partners. At present, the discussions are not sufficiently advanced and the market situation is not sufficiently clear for them to be able to put any proposals to the Government.

Mr. Tebbit: That is the sort of answer we have had for two and a half years. Is the Minister aware that cheapjack appeals to the patriotism of his Tribunite friends will do damn-all good if he cannot make up his mind about any single major industrial development, which he has the power to do right now under the Civil Aviation Act?

Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friends, whether members of the Tribune Group or not, have far more patriotism than the hon. Gentleman will ever have if he goes on asking that ignorant, malicious and snide sort of question. The fact is that under private enterprise we have had not one proposal for a new aircraft project. The only new aircraft project launched in the past few years has been from the nationalised Short Bros and Harland. Only when we get this industry into public ownership shall we have the new projects, and if we do not get it into public ownership there will be no new civil projects.

Mr. Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an area in which public expenditure is necessary and desirable, especially as the aerospace industry is finding it difficult to cope with the longstanding consequences of the recession? Will he agree that in aerospace engines as well as in airframes we need to move forward quickly, especially with projects such as the JT10B?

Mr. Kaufman: The Opposition wish to leave the future of the civil aviation industry to the free play of market forces. I do not know whether that implies Government money too, but I can only say that if the Tories had left Rolls-Royce to the free play of market forces there would be no future for Rolls-Royce, and my hon. Friend's constituents who are looking forward to that engine would now be waiting to find other opportunities.

Mr. Henderson: Will the Minister give an assurance that not a penny more of taxpayers' money will be wasted on a stupid project such as Concorde or Concorde II?

Mr. Kaufman: Without accepting that this superb technological achievement is a stupid project, I remind the hon. Gentleman that I have made perfectly clear both to our French partners and to the workers of the British Aircraft Corporation that

no more Concordes will be built unless firm orders can be obtained without loss to the taxpayer. M. Cavaillé and I agreed at our metting last week that we would not go ahead with the £500 million that BAC has asked us to spend—without a penny of its own money, of course—on a stretched Concorde.

Mr. Warren: To return to civil aviation projects, can the Minister explain why, with the full authority of the 1949 Act, he has not taken the initiative, which he has power to do under that Act, to help civil aviation? Why must it wait for nationalisation?

Mr. Kaufman: For two and a half years now, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have been telling us not to bail out lame ducks and not to spend public money on them. We have made our position clear. On 29th June my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House that there would be an assured future for Scottish Aviation within British Aerospace, and that statement is available for the hon. Gentleman to see. I wish that I could say that if the Bill fell the same assured future would exist. It would not.

National Enterprise Board

Mr. Grylls: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the interim accounts of the National Enterprise Board for the period 20th November 1975 to 30th June 1976.

Mr. Les Huckfield: No, Sir.

Mr. Grylls: Is the Under-Secretary satisfied with a meagre profit of £29 million on sales of £1,100 million by the National Enterprise Board? If a private sector company did so badly, it would never be able to raise money in the market. How can the NEB go on spending and spending? Is the reason that it is using taxpayers' money?

Mr. Huckfield: That is a rather peculiar remark to come from the hon. Gentleman, especially since he and his hon. Friends are constantly running down British industry. He should appreciate that if the regeneration of British industry is to be achieved, and if we are to secure a shift of the nation's resources into manufacturing industry, the National Enterprise Board must play a very prominent part.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is not the NEB concerned with rescuing vital parts of British industry which have been abandoned by private enterprise—or the lack of it—and are not the initial losses bound to reflect that, although the ultimate gain to British employment and prosperity will be well worth the cost?

Mr. Huckfield: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Without this Government, the country would not have a car industry. Without this Government, it would not have an aero-engine industry or a machine tool industry. The Conservatives voted against each of those decisions.

Planning Agreements

Mr. John Garrett: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will report progress on drawing up planning agreements with leading companies.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether any planning agreements under the Industry Act 1975 have yet been concluded.

Mr. Clemitson: asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many planning agreements have so far been reached; and with what companies.

Mr. George Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is now the extent of progress towards the achievement of planning agreements; and with which sectors of industry negotiations are taking place.

Mr. Varley: As the House knows, detailed discussions are in progress with eight companies in the process plant, turbo-generator and motor vehicle sectors of industry. Planning agreements are also being introduced with three nationalised industries. Announcements will be made as further companies agree to enter into operative discussions, and statements on the conclusion of planning agreements will be laid at the appropriate time.

Mr. Garrett: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that any strategy for the development of British industry must be based on plans drawn up between the Government and leading companies?

Does he accept that some of us at least think that the efforts so far have been wholly inadequate and that we cannot settle down to the orderly planning of industry without a far greater number of planning agreements?

Mr. Varley: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said. I am not satisfied with the progress either. These are voluntary agreements, as was set out in December 1974, but British industry and industrialists continually come to me and complain that, even where investment and technology are comparable with investment and technology overseas, they are not getting enough out of them. The best way to get a better performance by industry is to enter into planning discussions, and I hope that more companies will do so.

Mr. Hal Miller: What is the Government's input into these agreements, particularly with the motor industry? Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that there is real lack of confidence among all those working in that industry in the Government's plans for it, whether through fuel tax, interest rates, the size of the market or licensing policy? Is there any firm Government purpose and policy towards that industry?

Mr. Varley: There would not have been much confidence in that industry if—

Mr. Miller: Tell us the Government's policy.

Mr. Varley: I can stand here all day if necessary and wait for the barracking to stop. The input of taxpayers' money into the motor industry over the last two and a half years has been about £250 million. The discussions with British Leyland and Chrysler are going extremely well. I hope that in due course we shall be able to announce the conclusion of planning agreements, and a statement will be made.

Mr. Clemitson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that two of the vital elements needed for the recovery of the economy are the better planning of resources and the development of democracy in industry, in both of which planning agreements have a vital rôle to play? Is it not therefore extremely disappointing that no


planning agreements appear yet to have been concluded?

Mr. Varley: It is disappointing, and I think that British industry is taking an extremely negative view of planning agreements. I know that the companies I have announced are anxious to enter into discussions, but by and large the response has been pretty poor and it is plain that the Government will have to take stock of the position very soon.

Mr. Cormack: How does the right hon. Gentleman expect British industry to have confidence in him or the Government when a sizeable percentage of the Labour Party wishes to see the mixed economy reduced to ruins and equates planning with nationalisation and complete State takeover? How can he expect to preserve credibility?

Mr. Varley: A year ago we entered into the industrial strategy exercise, if I can call it that, through the framework of the National Economic Development Council, and we have had about 40 sector working reports in which 1,000 people have been involved. But it is plain that, if we are to make progress and improve performance, that work has to be translated to the level of the company and the plant. That is not being done. Planning agreements have a role to play, and I hope that industry recognises it.

Mr. Rodgers: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the calamity at Courtaulds would not have occurred had a planning agreement been established with that company? Does not he also agree that restriction on wages and salaries in isolation is both unfair and futile if we do not also control and influence investment in industry?

Mr. Varley: British industry has, over the last few months, had a climate in which it could enter into planning agreements. The voluntary pay policy has helped considerably. There has been a dramatic reduction in the number of disputes and strikes. Sometimes I ask myself what more industry requires. If it believes in an industrial strategy, it really should enter into planning agreement discussions.

Mr. Heseltine: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the first requirement for industry to co-operate with the

Government is that it should have confidence in the ability of the Government to govern the country? How does he think he will inspire that confidence when, in the year since the dialogue about planning agreements took place, the Government have seen their own borrowing requirement rising by £2,000 million, they have put up the borrowing rate to 15 per cent, minimum, and they have imposed a payroll levy in order to take another £1,000 million out of industry's resources?

Mr. Varley: At the same time the 100 per cent, capital investment allowances have been maintained, there has been substantial help to British industry on the basis of stock appreciation and the Price Code has been relaxed considerably, sometimes to the disappointment of my hon. Friends. All that has to be set in the balance. At this time, British industry has no reason to complain in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman complains.

Growth Sectors (Trade Balance)

Mr. Moonman: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what has been the balance of trade surplus-deficit figures from each of the growth sectors included in the industrial strategy planning.

Mr. Cryer: I shall arrange for the figures for the past three years to be published in the Official Report.

Mr. Moonman: Will my hon. Friend give due attention to the concern in one of the growth sectors, the computer industry, where management and specialists are worried about the lack of forward planning being shown by officials of his Department, and—perhaps more important—the fact that there seems to be no relationship between sector reports from one industry to another? If we are to have a total plan, does not this seem an obvious thing to do?

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, and I hope that when he sees the figures in Hansard he will accept that, in general—it is difficult to judge any specific sector in this context—the position in the first half of this year shows a slight growth and a slight improvement in the balance of trade position.

Following are the figures:

TRADE BALANCE FOR INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY INDUSTRIES* Exports (fob) less imports (cif)


£ million



1973
1974
1975


Food and Drink Manufacturing
-1,609
-1,615
-1,599


Organic Chemicals
7
39
56


Pharmaceuticals
139
180
239


Plastics Materials
9
-6
70


Synthetic Rubber
7
8
-4


Iron and Steel
75
-139
-72


Ferrous Foundries


Machine Tools
18
11
59


Pumps and Valves
† 87
104
155


Fluid Power Equipment


Process Plant†
62
80
138


Industrial Engines
90
77
124


Textile Machinery
76
103
142


Construction Equipment
116
170
310


Mechanical Handling Equipment
32
58
117


Industrial Trucks


Office Machinery
-6
2
16


Mining Machinery
13
25
37


Printing Machinery
8
8
36


Heating and Ventilating Equipment†
3
6
11


Food and Drink Processing, Packaging and Bottling Machinery
3
-2
44


Constructional Steelwork
28
30
47


Bearings
6
-2
5


Gears
4
7
7


Drop Forgings
5
9
12


Scientific Instruments†
21
29
52


Electronic Components
-80
-69
-23


Computers
-54
-82
-54


Radio, Radar and Electronic Capital Goods
48
85
145


Telecommunications Equipment
33
28
33


Electronic Consumer Goods
-223
-157
-94


Heavy Electrical Machinery
75
96
253


Industrial Electrical Equipment


Domestic Electrical Appliances
-22
-25
-31


Man-made Fibres
78
85
73


Wool Textiles
146
157
141


Hosiery and Knitwear
8
7
-15


Clothing
-140
-163
-213


Paper and Boards‡
-501
-841
-738


Rubber Manufactures
71
91
139


Total
-1,367
-1,606
-415


* It is not possible, in all cases, to identify separately the products relevant to each industrial strategy sector in the Overseas Trade Statistics. Figures for some sectors are therefore presented as combined totals. No trade figures are available for the products of the non-ferrous foundries sector, but trade in these products is believed to be very small.


† Because it is not possible to identify exactly products of these industries in the Overseas Trade Statistics, these figures include trade in products of some sectors of industry which are not included in the industrial strategy exercise.


‡ The balance for the paper and board industry is significantly affected by the inclusion of imports of pulp for paper making.

Motor Industry

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will instruct the National Enterprise Board to reduce its support of the motor car industry in proportion to the strike record of whichever company is in receipt of subsidy.

Mr. Kaufman: The National Enterprise Board does not provide subsidies to

any industry, nor does it have responsibility for the motor car industry as a whole.

Mr. Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although it is true—and one must be thankful for it—that the strike record in the motor car industry has greatly improved, it does not help if loans are provided by the NEB which are open-ended, since what the industry needs is better delivery dates, better quality and


a general effort on the part of everyone concerned to improve the export record? Thankfully, that is happening, and it is therefore desirable that the NEB should not act as a crutch.

Mr. Kaufman: I acknowledge the constructive tone of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. What we need within British Leyland and the other subsidiaries of the NEB is the kind of concerted effort that the hon. Gentleman rightly recommends. The NEB has strict rules about the terms on which it makes loans. The House debated the terms upon which the further tranche of finance was given to British Leyland last summer. There have been commitments by vote of the work force to the new Mini since then, and the hon. Gentleman is right in wishing to encourage British Leyland and the other subsidiaries of the NEB to move forward in this constructive fashion.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does not my hon. Friend agree that in the first nine months of this year Britain had the lowest number of industrial disputees for the past 23 years? Does he not further agree that the trade union movement has played a major part in bringing about this favourable development? Is it not now time for attention to be focused on the investment strikers who have failed Britain so badly?

Mr. Kaufman: This country owes an unparelleled debt to the trade union leaders for the voluntary restraint which they have provided and as a result of which we have managed to halve the inflation rate since the pay policy came about after the disastrous spiral upon which it was started by Lord Barber, who was also one of those chiefly responsible for urging the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) into the Conservative Government's disastrous confrontation with the trade union movement.

CBI

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next intends to meet the Director-General of the CBI.

Mr. Varley: We met at the National Economic Development Council meeting last week, and I expect we shall do so again shortly.

Mr. Jessel: Has the Secretary of State read the latest CBI publication "The Road to Recovery" which says that to get industrial recovery it is essential to cut Government spending by £3,000 million? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with this?

Mr. Varley: No, I do not agree. I have read the document, and there are certain sections in it with which I do agree. I agree with it on the question of improving industrial performance, productivity and profitability. I think that those sections would find support throughout the whole House. However, there are other sections which are pretty disastrous.

Mr. Crawford: Will the Secretary of State tell the Scottish CBI that one sure way to increase investment in Scotland would be to have a sovereign Scotland with a strong Scots pound? Scotland, unlike England, basically can balance its economy.

Mr. Varley: I do not know on what basis the hon. Gentleman comes to conclusions like that. I know that British industry is linked throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, and that the Scottish coal industry could not exist on a competitive basis alongside the English coal industry. I am not at all sure that in some parts of Scotland there are those who agree that it is Scottish oil. There are some suggestions that it is Shetland oil. Then there is the nuclear power programme, which in Scotland is linked with the British programme.

Shift work

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is able to give the percentage of companies in the United Kingdom manufacturing industry that operate more than one shift per day.

Mr. Les Huckfield: No, Sir. This information is not available.

Mr. Costain: Can the Minister explain why I can get that information from the House of Commons Library? Will he take advantage of the information in the Library to ascertain that very few firms are now doing shift work? How can he say that British industry is under-capitalised if capital investment is not


properly used? Will he look at the Employment Protection Act and see how this is affecting the situation?

Mr. Huckfield: The hon. Member can get the overall statistics of the numbers of workers who work shifts; that information has always been available. If, however, he is talking about specific firms and is asking my Department to undertake detailed research into the number of firms, I hope that his hon. Friends will note the increase for which he is calling in public spending.

Mr. Tom King: The Minister's answer is even more remarkable in view of a recent parliamentary answer to me which indicated that there are now 1,200 statisticians in the Department of Industry costing the taxpayer about £7 million a year. Is that large number justified if information such as that for which my hon. Friend has asked is not available? What are all these people doing?

Mr. Huckfield: If they had been put to the good use to which they are now put when the Conservatives were in office, we would not be faced with our present industrial difficulties. I only hope that if the hon. Gentleman proposes an increase in research into industrial activities of this kind he will persuade his hon. Friends that there should be an increase in public expenditure.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my hon. Friend aware that, unlike Opposition Members, very many workers who have to spend years working night shifts in industry regard it as very harmful to health and to social and family life?

Mr. Huckfield: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many Conservatives have never had experience of shift work and do not know what it is all about. Shift work is a matter for negotiation in each place of employment between the management and unions concerned.

Aerospace Industry

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what political and economic policy guidelines he intends to frame for the proposed British aerospace industry.

Mr. Kaufman: The Government will be looking towards the British Aerospace Corporation to develop a strategy based

upon profitability coupled with maximum employment opportunities, with emphasis on collaborative ventures with suitable partners in Europe, the United States and elsewhere.

Mr. Adley: In view of what the Minister said about employment opportunities, and as some trade unions are bullying the managers of the nationalised industries into acceptance of the closed shop as the price they have to pay for industrial peace, can he guarantee that if this Bill appears on the statute book all those at Hawker Siddeley and BAC will have the opportunity to express their views on the closed shop in a ballot before it is imposed upon them?

Mr. Kaufman: We have inserted into the Bill unprecedented amendments which provide for progress towards industrial democracy in both British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders. That is the kind of course which is best pursued.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the Minister say whether the salaries of the directors of the proposed new corporations will be less or more than the salary which our former colleague, Mr. Edward Short, finds so inadequate at Cable and Wireless Ltd. now that he has left us?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman has the unique capacity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] I repeat, the hon. Gentleman has the unique capacity for taking hold of trivial questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question"]— and trivialising them even further. The salaries paid to the board of British Aerospace will be commensurate with the very great abilities of the people who have agreed to serve. The staffs of BAC, Hawker Siddeley Aviation and Hawker Siddeley Dynamics have a great deal more patriotic approach to the future of this industry than have hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that the supplementary question relating to the trade unions is to the annoyance of Conservative Members because of the record of British trade unionists in achieving industrial peace? They are robbing the Tory Party of the opportunity to stab Britain in the back, and they are compelling the Leader of the Opposition


to go to foreign countries to do her dirty work of running down this nation.

Mr. Kaufman: The Britsh trade union movement sets an example in patriotism which the Opposition would do well to follow.

Oral Answers to Questions — POULSON CASE

Mr. Canavan: asked the Attorney-General what has been the total cost to public funds of the prosecutions to date arising out of the affairs of Mr. J. G. L. Poulson.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Attorney-General what has been the total cost to public funds to date of the various prosecutions arising out of the affairs of Mr. J. G. L. Poulson.

The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): The total cost of prosecutions cannot yet be ascertained. It would certainly not be less than £126,000.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the public expenditure involved and the general public interest in this affair, are not the public entitled to know whether there are grounds for any further prosecutions? The public are likely to see the setting up of a private parliamentary Select Committee as a mere whitewashing attempt. I urge the Government to set up a public inquiry to investigate every aspect of the Poulson affair.

The Attorney-General: There has been a debate on this matter and the whole House has had the opportunity to discuss it. I do not think that the course of action which my hon. Friend recommends would be particularly profitable.

Mr. Adley: In view of the allegations of human usury at British Leyland at Castle Bromwich, will the Attorney-General have an investigation into this situation? There is double cause for concern here because not only are there the allegations of bribery but there is a frightening situation in which no greased palms equals no jobs.

The Attorney-General: That is another question.

Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon and learned Friend aware that the answer to the hon. Member for Christchurch and

Lymington (Mr. Adley) in respect of the allegations he has just made is that if there is any truth in the matter, which I doubt, the net result would be that those involved would be brought before an open court and tried in the way in which Members of Parliament should be tried? Will my right hon. and learned Friend give a pledge this afternoon, in concert with the Prime Minister's remarks a fortnight ago, that we must look to the future and that Members of Parliament should be subjected to the same kind of legislation as people outside? Will he bring in a Bill to ensure that this is done?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend knows that I cannot give that pledge, nor can I bring such a Bill before Parliament. The Prime Minister has told the House that the recommendations of the Salmon Commission asking the House to consider this matter will be gone into.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBERS

The following Members took and subscribed the Oath:

Robin Granville Hodgson, Esq., for Walsall, North
Richard Lewis Page, Esq., for Workington
Harry Lowes Cowans, Esq., for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (DELEGATION)

Mr. Tim Renton: I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
the negotiations now taking place in London between the Government and Mr. Alan Whittome's team from the International Monetary Fund on the terms of a loan to the United Kingdom of US $3·9 billion.
This matter is specific. The team is in London and its purpose and broad objective are well known. It is urgent because the discussions with the team have already started. They will continue only for some days, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House want the alternatives put forward for debate in the House, together with the


options and courses of action to be considered by the IMF team. That will be possible only if the debate takes place immediately.
The matter is important and it is made more so by the relevation in the weekend Press that once again the Chancellor has got his figures wrong and that next year's borrowing requirement may be £11 billion and not £9 billion.
The decisions taken as a result of this visit will have a profound effect on the course of the British economy and on the jobs and prospects of hundreds of thousands of our work force.
The House would be guilty of derelict stupidity if it did not debate the matter before the Chancellor sent his letter of intent to the IMF.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration; namely,
the negotiations now taking place in London between the Government and Mr. Alan Whittome's team from the International Monetary Fund on the terms of a loan to the United Kingdom of US $3·9 billion".
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reasons for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the representations that the hon.

Gentleman has made, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED

COMPANIES (NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS AND AUDIT COMMITTEES)

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams supported by Mr. Kenneth Baker, Mr. John Cope, Mr. David Crouch, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Robert McCrindle, Mr. Tom Normanton, Mr. David Price, Mr. Tim Rathbone, Sir John Rodgers and Mr. Sydney Bidwell, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the appointment and duties of non-executive directors; to provide for the appointment and functions of audit-committees in major public companies; to require the preparation of certain data and estimates for consideration by audit committees; and for connected purposes: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 247.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Medicines (Labelling) Regulations 1976 (S.I., 1976, No. 1726) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL AND EDUCATION BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

3.38 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science and Paymaster General (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I beg to move,
That the Order of 20th July 1976 be supplemented as follows—

Lords Amendments

1. The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to either Bill shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.

2. For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which hase been already pro posed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, of as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended.
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
(iii) put forthwith, with respect to each remaining Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment, and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) so soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to such Lords Amendments.

Stage subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.

4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(a) put forthwith the Question on any Motion which is made by a Minister of the Crown on any item,
(b) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment, or other proposal,
(c) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) So soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Proposals, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Motion made by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Proposal.

Supplemental

5.—(1) In this paragraph 'the Proceedings' means Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, or on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown under Standing Order No. 57(1) (Lords amendments) that the Proceedings shall be considered forthwith.

(3) Paragraph 1 of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the Proceedings.

(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the Proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(5) If the Proceedings are set down on any day as first Government Order of the Day paragraph 4 of the Order of 20th July 1976 (Private Business) shall apply as if that day were an allotted day.

(6) If the Proceedings were interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

The motion is necessary because the Opposition have made it clear throughout that they want to prevent the Education Bill and the Rent (Agriculture) Bill from reaching the statute book. The Government cannot allow that to happen to Bills


for which clear mandates were given by the electorate at the last General Election—

Mr. David Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? The Secretary of State is moving a guillotine motion on two Bills. For one of the Bills we have all the papers—we have the Bill, the Lords amendments and the Government's proposals for consideration. However, on the second Bill in the motion we have neither the Lords amendments nor the Government's proposals on them. In view of the need to protect all hon. Members, is it right to proceed with the second leg of the right hon. Lady's motion in the absence of that information? Looking at it quite objectively, how can the House consider the amount of time we should allocate to consideration of the Lords amendments when we do not know what they are or whether the Government will invite us to agree or disagree with them? This situation applies also to subsequent motions which are to be moved from the Government Front Bench later tonight.

Mr. Speaker: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that he has advanced a point of argument which no doubt he can use if he is called in the course of debate, but I have to follow the Order Paper, and we are now taking time out of the one-hour's debate on the guillotine motion.

Mr. David Price: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you give no ruling whether the Government have to come forward with their views on their Lordships' amendments before we debate the time to be allocated? You will recall that the late Lord Kelvin said that to measure is to know, and we have no means of measuring how much time this House could reasonably spend on consideration of their Lordsips' amendments in default of the information that is normally available. We have the information on the Education Bill, therefore we could come to consideration of the Government's proposals on that Bill, but we have not the information in regard to the other Bills that we are asked to consider today.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I cannot rule as the hon. Gentleman wishes me so to do. The business has begun and the Order Paper is before us.

Mrs. Williams: As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) was kind enough to say—

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have just ruled on this matter, and the hon. Gentleman is aware that we have one hour for the debate that we are now embarked upon. We could be wasting time.

Mr. Ridley: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. How can the House be expected to come to proper decisions about a matter if the guillotine papers are not laid before it? I remember that on previous occasions your predecessor helped the House when the Stationery Office was on strike and proper Order Papers had not been printed. I am sure that your predecessors have always felt that hon. Members should have the relevant information before seeking to debate a matter. We have not the relevant information. Surely, therefore, you should intercede with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to move this motion on a day when the House has been presented with the information.

Mr. Speaker: I had notice of the point of order, due to the courtesy of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), therefore I did not rule off the cuff. It was a considered reply that I gave to the hon. Gentleman. The House itself will decide. But the hon. Gentleman has advanced an argument which no doubt will play a great part in the debate this afternoon.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely this is a procedural matter and it would be proper that the Leader of the House should move it rather than the poor right hon. Lady, who has to do the executioner's dirty work for him. We realise that the right hon. Gentleman has been sick, but surely he is able to undertake this act of execution himself. It is extremely bad luck on the right hon. Lady that she has to undertake it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I do not select who speaks for the Government.

Mrs. Williams: I am always grateful for the commiseration of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser),


but I think he will know that on a previous occasion, when these same Bills were under consideration, they were, of course, moved by the appropriate Ministers who were themselves responsible for the Bills. Therefore no precedent is being set on this occasion.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Eastleigh, I was attempting to reply to him a the moment at which the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) leapt into the gap. I was going to say that the point raised by the hon. Member for Eastleigh would be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, when we come to his section of the debate, dealing with the Rent (Agriculture) Bill.
With regard to the Education Bill, on which the hon. Member was kind enough to say that the House has before it the Lords amendments, the indication of the Government's advice on those amendments, and the indications of what the Government will call on the House to do, I do not think his point arises.
I was about to say that the House will be clear that the Education Bill had a majority of 41 on Second Reading, and is therefore regarded by the Government as appropriately going ahead in its original form, as far as possible, towards the statute book.
I remind the House that a great deal of time has already been spent on the Bill. It is a 10-clause Bill. There was a day in February spent on the Second Reading, when, as I have indicated, the motion was carried by a substantial majority. It was then considered in Standing Committee between February and May. There was no timetable motion and almost no use of the closure. There were 35 sittings, taking a total of 86 hours. That is far beyond the amount of time spent on much more major education Bills in the past.
Some right hon and hon. Members have referred to how carefully statutes and Bills were vetted in the past by the House of Commons. But in the case of the Education Bill there can be no comparison. When the 1944 Education Bill—which had 120 clauses and 9 schedules—was debated by the House, it was

thought fitting to spend less time on it than has been devoted to the 10 clauses of the current Education Bill. The reason for that is quite simply that the then Opposition treated the 1944 Education Bill in a responsible manner. The same cannot be said of the current Opposition in regard to the Education Bill 1976. There were four full days on Report in June and July. There was a debate on Third Reading, when the majority was 34.
The Bill then proceeded to another place, where it was discussed for six hours on Second Reading, for 19 hours in Committee, for seven hours on Report, and was discussed again on Third Reading for most of last Wednesday. Altogether this Bill of 10 clauses, some of which are minor clauses, has had no fewer than 160 hours of parliamentary time in the two Houses of Parliament. I do not think that anyone could describe that as an inadequate consideration of the Bill.
In the Lords some 20 amendments have been made to the Bill. We have accepted some of them because we thought that they had a very substantial point to make. We have indicated that we shall seek to accept one or two others in this House. But I must make it clear that it seems to us that most of the other outstanding amendments simply go over ground which has been ploughed up time and again in Committee, on Third Reading and in the House of Lords, and that it is little more than filibustering to go over all this ground again. Indeed a noble Lord in another place indicated that the Bill had been exhaustively debated, and that it had been taken through to what he described as the end by his hon. Friend the Shadow Minister.
We believe, therefore, that there is every justification for this timetable motion. It allows six further hours for the discussion of these much-discussed amendments. I commend the motion to the house.
With regard to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill, 16 hours were spent on its Committee stage in the House of Lords and 29 hours in the House of Commons.
These two matters were discussed, therefore, at the greatest length and in the greatest detail by both Houses of Parliament. I will ask my hon. Friend


the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to deal with any points that may arise in regard to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill when he winds up the debate.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: It was interesting that today of all days the right hon. Lady should have invoked once again the suggestion that the Government have a mandate for these motions. If they ever did, that mandate was made to look singularly flyblown by the events of last Thursday. I very much hope that the fact that the Leader of the House is not participating in the debates today does not mean that his recovery has been in any way arrested.
This is the last chapter in the saga of excessive and ill-conceived legislation. It also marks an unusually peremptory brushing aside of the views of other people.
It is not my intention today to burrow either into precedent or even into past speeches of the Leader of the House—rich mine as they offer for arguments much more respectable than those upon which he relies these days.
Although I am aware that only two Bills are dealt with in this motion, it is necessary to cast an eye over the whole of the Government's proceeding today to judge the enormity of their misconduct. We have had again from the right hon. Lady this argument about the manifesto. In the light of events, that manifesto is beginning to look more than ever like a noose round the neck of the country.
The Leader of the House made it very clear on Thursday afternoon that the Government did not know and perhaps did not care how many amendments would fall to be disposed of under this procedure; nor did he seem to be aware or to care how many of the amendments were Government amendments; nor were we given any estimate of the number of amendments which would be totally un-discussed during these guillotined proceedings.
As yet, there has been no Third Reading in the Lords of either of the two main Bills with which we are concerned. The Education Bill is due to receive a Third Reading today, with 22 marshalled amendments to be considered, some of them Government amendments. One Bill

has had only one day in Committee in the Lords. Another Bill has had 40 out of 59 Government amendments during its Committee stage. In the case of another Bill, there have been 20 out of 42 Government amendments on Report.
So it does not lie in the mouth of the Government to say that all the proceedings and the discussion have stemmed from the Opposition. Many of the Lords amendments are concerned with clauses and schedules which were guillotined here. Are we to have no assurance at all from the Government about an opportunity to discuss measures included in the Education Bill which have never been discussed on the Floor of the House of Commons, the amendments to which evidently are not to be touched upon here?
During the overspill, the House of Lords will have dealt with more than 200 Government amendments to the torrent of legislation which it has before it. I think that this House will agree that it would be hard to find a more eloquent condemnation by the Government of the poor quality of their own legislative product.
In The Daily Telegraph, Mr. Paul Johnson—[Interruption.] Always derision is reserved by Government supporters for people with whom they do not agree or for people who have departed from the strict party line. Whether they like it or not, Mr. Paul Johnson defined the issue very well in The Daily Telegraph last Saturday when he wrote:
The issue is whether the Lords should join the Commons in passing bad laws and so bring the whole legislative process into disrepute.
One of the arguments constantly put forward by Government supporters who are bereft of anything better is that the House of Lords is an anachronism. But under what Act does the House of Lords now operate? It operates under the 1949 Parliament Act passed by Mr. Atlee's Government.
If there is so much wrong with the House of Lords, why has there been so little attempt to reform it? Who has been the most consistent advocate of reform of the House of Lords? The answer is, none other than Lord Carrington. I need hardly ask who did most to prevent and frustrate reform of the House of Lords. We all know that no one did so more than the present Leader


of the House. Events have taught us that he and his colleagues want a single-chamber Government with a House of Commons which is prepared to become the lackey of the administration.
From Government supporters who sit below the Gangway, all that we have heard about the House of Lords is the rather unpleasant cry "Off with their heads". Hon. Members below the Gangway make one think of some nightmare endured by Lewis Carroll which somehow has come to reality.

Mr. John Lee: The right hon. Gentleman evidently regards as important the continuation of the second Chamber for the purposes of revision. Will he tell the House, or ask his Leader to say if he does not feel able to do so, since there is a Conservative majority at present performing these revisory functions to Labour legislation, is it the Conservative Party's intention that there shall be a Labour majority in the House of Lords if and when we have another period of Conservative Government?

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) teaches one yet again how foolish it is ever to give way to another hon. Member. It would have been much more merciful to the hon. Gentleman if I had refused to give way to him.
The hon. Member for Handsworth, however, raises the question of the Labour content of the House of Lords, and that brings me on to the matter with which I was about to deal. What have Labour peers been up to? During the past two inglorious and ignoble years, the so-called Wilson creations, as they might be dubbed—

Mr. Lee: Hear, hear. I quite agree.

Mr. Peyton: —have contained no fewer than 40 or 50 people of quite staunch fidelity and loyalty to the Labour Party. I am the last person to question the zeal or the loyalty of those worthy men and women—

Mr. Russell Kerr: Permission granted.

Mr. Peyton: All that one can say about them is that they have had the prudence,

the judgment and presumably the discrimination to think ill of this rubbishy legislation. In any event, they have not been very active in the Division Lobbies. However, I do not wish to stir up bad feeling amongst Government supporters by making any more extensive references to patronage, especially the patronage spooned out by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson), whom we so greatly miss today.
We are told that the conduct of the House of Lords is undemocratic. Who on earth are the critics of the other place to say that—they who are not prepared to give even a backward glance at the events of Thursday of last week and who pretend that Thursday never happened, when the public, given the opportunity to pass some judgment and to express an opinion on this rotten Government, did so with such striking results?
Sadly, we have all to face the fact that the House of Commons has gained no lustre in the past two years. It is far from being able to bask in the sunshine of popular approval. Ministers are provided by the House of Commons which is then content that those same Ministers should get their orders from elsewhere.
I do not wish to prolong my remarks on what should be a short but, I hope, still painful debate for Government supporters and certainly for those of them who still have some regard for parliamentary government. I know that there are a number of Government supporters who are much concerned about the damage inflicted upon our country by Left-wing extremists. Parliament and the nation will watch them today, not without sympathy, hoping that one or two of them—I am not referring to the nightmare figures below the Gangway—will, in the interests of moderation and tolerance, step back from these oppressive measures.
I hope also that those who represent parties other than mine on this side of the House will think that they would best do their duty today by rejecting measures which would have the effect, designed or otherwise, of wounding and damaging Parliament.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: The reason for these guillotine motions is that the Government have overloaded Parliament. It is a travesty of


democracy that we should be asked to pass procedural motions on Bills that have not even reached us.
There is none of the usual excuses for these motions. There has been no filibustering. The Government certainly have no mandate—they attracted only 38 per cent. of the votes at the last General Election and would attract a lot fewer today. Nor is the passage of the Bills essential.
We face the gravest economic difficulties which have come upon us even though we have not suffered from war, pestilence or famine. They have come upon us because of the mismanagement of our affairs and too much and too bad government.
These Bills are at best irrelevant to the crisis we are facing and at worst positively damaging. The Government's only argument is that they were in their manifesto. I understand that the Secretary of State for Education and Science urged voters at Thursday's by-elections to vote for Labour candidates so that the Labour Government might succeed in carrying out their programme. That was a terrifying thought to most of the electorate. Even if the Government's programme had any relevance to our present situation, it is totally unnecessary for it to be carried out by next week, which is what we are being asked to do.
The House of Lords is primarily a revising Chamber and it is necessary, judging from the fact that the Government have tabled 200 amendments there this autumn. Peers have been performing their job and scrutinising these Bills, some parts of which were hardly touched on in this House. They have passed many amendments which were supported not just by Liberal and Conservative peers, but by Labour and Cross-Bench peers, and they have given serious consideration to the matters sent to them by this House.
Surely in return we must give serious consideration to their pronouncements upon these Bills. If eventually there is disagreement, this House will be in a very much stronger position if the Government have at least allocated adequate time for discussion of the Lords' proposals. Under this motion, not only will some proposals not be discussed, but some will be voted on en bloc and this will cut the ground from under any

criticism that the Lords are exceeding their proper authority.
If there is disagreement, the Lords have the right to hold up legislation for a limited time. They were given this right not by a Tory or Liberal Government, but by a Labour Government, so hon. Members opposite can hardly complain if their own statute is carried out.
We are now faced with a serious constitutional issue. The fact that we have no written constitution does not mean that we have no constitution at all. We have established constitutional practices which have so far been respected by leading statesmen of all parties. One is that Governments with a very small majority in the Commons and no majority in the country do not attempt to force through highly controversial legislation. Mr. Attlee did no such thing in 1950–51.
Another unspoken practice of the constitution is that Governments should look to the interests of the people as a whole and direct their minds to the basic troubles and needs of the country and not simply act as the political wing of certain organisations.
A reformed second Chamber may be necessary. I have long advocated that it should be elected. But at present it is there, under Labour legislation, carrying out its job and defending the essential unwritten constitutional practices of this country. If the Government are not careful, they will find themselves involved not in a battle of people versus peers, but in a battle of people and peers versus a Government who are on the way to a corporate State and becoming a dictatorship by a minority.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. John Lee: The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is an inappropriate person to make a speech in defence of the House of Lords. His grandfather-in-law, in a similar position to that faced by the Government today and not even a member of the largest party in the House, rightly carried through some of the most contentious legislation this country has ever known. He did so in the face of the House of Lords after delivering a threat to that body that it would be reduced to a state of ridicule.
I hope that the Government will at long last have the guts to invoke the precedent of the example of the right hon. Gentleman's grandfather-in-law. I can hardly imagine any party that would face a General Election with more trepidation than the Liberal Party. My party might suffer a measure of defeat, but the Liberals would face not defeat, but extinction.
I should be sorry if that happened, because I regard the Liberal Party, for all its oddities, as, on the whole, a civilising and leavening influence in this House. So do not let us hear any calls from hon. Members on that Bench for a General Election. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is the only one likely to survive an early election.
It is clear that we are moving towards a constitutional crisis. Whatever the merits or demerits of the Government's legislation and whatever criticisms are made of it, it is plain that no Government for the past 50 years have been treated in this way by the non-elected Chamber. No Government have been treated in this way since the Liberal Government before the First World War. Certainly no Conservative Government have ever been treated in this way.
There was none of this trouble over the European Communities Bill, or the denationalisation legislation of the 1950s. None of this took place when the Trade Disputes Act 1927—a contentious piece of legislation if ever there was one—was going through. Most of this sort of legislation was passed with hardly a Division. There have been more Government defeats in the past four or five months than in all the years since the Second World War.
To a considerable extent the blame for this lies not in the reasons advanced by hon. Members opposite, but in the cowardice of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) in the way that he failed to face up to the challenge of the Lords and in the kind of people put there on his recommendation.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) had a perfectly valid point when he made fun—

Mr. Cranley Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is

it in order for the hon. Member to accuse the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) of cowardice? Should he not qualify that term in some way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I was unaware whether the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) was referring to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) personally or to his policy. There is a difference. Perhaps he will inform the Chair which he meant. If it was a personal attack, it is to be deprecated and must be withdrawn.

Mr. Lee: I shall refer to his policy then. My right hon. Friend's policy was singularly ignominious.
It is difficult for us to advance arguments in support of these motions and it is easy for the right hon. Member for Yeovil to pour scorn on them when we have had a large number of persons recommended for peerages in the past two and a half years—indeed, in the past 10 years—who do not bother to take their places. Even when they do, it seems to me that—and, of course, we must distinguish between non-attendance, on the one hand, and rebellion, on the other—they take up a position quite independent of their party. Looking at the people there, with the exception of Lord Paget, Lord Bruce of Donington and the late Lord Bradwell, hardly one of them is worth a bag of beans.
Many Labour Members, not only those below the Gangway—my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee), who is no Left winger, made the point in a recent article in The Times—have attacked the absurdity of inherited legislative rights. It is incredible that the House of Lords should have been used as an eventide home for clapped out political deadbeats—

Mr. Peyton: Mr. Peyton rose—

Mr. Lee: I shall give way in a moment—retired directors of Odhams and non-speaking secretaries. Some of us have had enough of that.

Mr. Peyton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. May I ask whether he proposes to circulate copies of his speech to those about whom he has been talking? I am sure that they would find it most interesting.

Mr. Lee: If they ever bother to turn up at the Palace of Westminster, they can read what has been said about them. Indeed, it might encourage them to attend.
I propose to take only a minute or two, because this is a short debate. I am glad that the Leader of the House is here, because I know that his heart is in the right place. I shall vote for the motions on this day, but I warn the Government, as I am now their majority of one, that they have between now and, I suppose, three months of the next Session to create sufficient Labour Peers to give us a majority in the other place.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is the hon. Gentleman going to the other place?

Mr. Lee: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman would be glad to see the back of me. In due course he will see the back of me, but not at a by-election.
If we are faced with this situation next year because the Government have not created enough peers to dispose of this absurd situation, I shall ask my hon. Friends to join me in refusing to vote for motions such as these in future. if we face defeat in the Commons on Lords amendments, that may force the Labour Government to face the absurd situation created by a non-elected Chamber which has never been occupied by any party other than the Conservative Party year in, year out.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Leader of the House know that we have had about as much as we can take of this situation. It is one thing for the House of Lords to be used as a revising Chamber, but it is another for it to be used, as it is being used by the Conservative Party, as an instrument for trying to bring down this Government. While most of the blame lies with the Conservative Party for inciting their Lordships to this position, a great deal of blame also lies with the lack of guts of our own Government. Some of us have decided that we have had just about as much as we can take.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: I shall not follow the hon. Mem-

ber for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) in his series of confidential reports on his colleagues. It would be an impertinence to intrude upon such public grief.
The amendments proposed by the Upper House have been in consequence of the exercise of powers given to it in the Parliament Act 1949, which was passed by a Labour Government. It is worth reminding ourselves of what was said on Second Reading of the Parliament Bill by the then Leader of the House. We had a Leader of the House then, not merely a Leader of half the House. On 20th September 1948 the then Leader of the House, Mr. Herbert Morrison, said:
As a revising Chamber, the Upper House is entitled to ask that the Commons should be required to give time and consideration to the Amendments which they have proposed to Bills sent up from the House of Commons."—[Official Report, 20th September 1948; Vol. 456, c. 531.]
The Prime Minister, in his much-heralded speech at Ruskin College the other day, placed great emphasis on the importance of mathematics. We might do some mathematics on the result of this motion if by some mischance it is passed tonight. We see that there are 16 Lords amendments with which the Government ask this House to disagree. There are to be 360 minutes for the Education Bill and the Rent (Agriculture) Bill to be debated. On the Education Bill, we shall have only 22½ minutes for each amendment. If there are, say, eight Divisions of 15 minutes each, that will bring down the time to 15 minutes for each amendment. Is that the degree of "time and consideration" that the Leader of the House, if he is Leader of the House, not leader of half the House, thinks appropriate for this House to give to those amendments?
Does he believe that there is any virtue in a revising Chamber? The truth of the matter is that he does not, and that he has not got one-tenth of the quality to bring to the office that he holds that his predecessor, Mr. Herbert Morrison, had. The great statesman, as he was by comparison with the right hon. Gentleman, sought to justify the Bill which he was then introducing by saying that it would enable the Commons to do that which it


was their duty under the constitution to do—namely,
to give time and consideration to the Amendments which they have proposed to Bills sent up from the House of Commons."—[Official Report, 20th September 1948; Vol. 456, c. 531.]
What will be thought by those in counties of England whose education authorities have not given way to Government by circular, and which have said that they will not submit plans for total comprehensive reorganisation under the Education Bill? For example, my authority in Kent has said that it is not against the principle as a whole but that, in certain selected areas where parents do not want it, it will stick to its selective schools. What will Kent say?
It will say that it wished that it had the opportunity which was given to Workington and Walsall because the Government have spat in its face, and that it looks forward to the day when retribution will come.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The Conservative Party has an infinite capacity for being disgusted, as we know. In fact, the opening speech for the Opposition by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) sounded as though it emanated from the original disgusted of Royal Tunbridge Wells. From that I gather that there is a certain amount of anger on the Opposition Benches.
I am deeply ashamed of the Labour Government who passed the Parliament Act in 1949. The Socialist Party should be in the process of getting rid of that anachronism, that undemocratic body to which the Opposition look when they want undemocratic procedures carried out. The House of Lords will always be the obedient puppet of the Tory Party. It carries out the Opposition's behests and does everything that they want done. The immense propaganda machine at their disposal, because of the riches possessed by them, pumps it home as though it were democracy. [Laughter.] The Opposition may laugh if they wish.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Flannery: No, there is not time. The right hon. Gentleman can go to his

friends in the House of Lords who can give him endless hours. We have little time to get through the democratic procedures that we want to go through.
The Opposition are again resorting to their infinite capacity for being disgusted. However, I should like to bring out one or two home truths about which they know, but which I shall reiterate because there are wider audiences than this one. Therefore, let us all listen to some home truths.
I served on the Committee considering the Education Bill, and I can report that it was the longest Committee stage that there has ever been on an education measure. Conservative Members wanted to go on for ever and ever and ever discussing the Bill. They wanted to filibuster and to stop this progressive measure from getting on to the statute book.
I speak as a former executive member of the National Union of Teachers. As the House knows, that organisation upholds the Bill which, unlike the undemocratic House of Lords, is another step in the process of the democratisation of the educational system in this country so that we ensure that large numbers of children do not go through that other anachronism, the 11-plus.
The purpose of the Education Bill is to allow children to go as of right into the comprehensive education system where they will have the opportunity to do what has been done since comprehensive education was introduced. The system has doubled the number of examination successes compared with the results that were achieved under the type of education that Tory Members still espouse, even though the official Opposition spokesman says that the Conservative Party agrees with comprehensive education. We welcome that statement, but let them carry out their professed belief by supporting the Education Bill.
Let me inform the House of the realities of the situation. There were 160 hours of debate, which means a longer period than ever before taken to discuss an education measure. How can anyone talk about a guillotine when there has been a longer period of debate on this measure than on any previous education legislation, including the 1944 Act? That is the democratic reality of


what has been happening on the Education Bill, and that is the reality which the undemocratic, out-dated geriatric ward of the House of Lords is trying to thwart in the name of undemocracy and anti-democracy.
Hon. Members on the Liberal Bench may be amused, but the fact is that if there were a General Election in the near future they would be removed totally from this place, and they know it. They would do well to support the Government on this issue, because they are liable to be removed in the event of the country being asked to vote at an election. The fact is that no one on the Liberal Benches wants a General Election.
Another reality of the situation is that for a short Bill of only 10 clauses we sat for hours in Committee and listened to absolute nonsense at unending length from the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) and his hon. Friends. If Conservative Members want to go through a few hours of torture, I ask them to read the speeches of their hon. Friends in that Committee. It was in that Committee that we were regaled by Conservative Members with anecdotes front the distant past, because they want to restore the educational system that operated in those bygone days.
Members of my party will vote tonight for this motion because we want to put through measures that have been subjected to massive democratic debate but which the various parties on the Benches opposite want to continue to discuss endlessly because they are against these great progressive measures that are to become law in the near future.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: It is extraordinary that the first fruit of the Prime Minister's conversion to an interest in education standards should be a curtailing of discussion of a major Education Bill. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has been put up, as has rightly been said, to do the Government's dirty work for them—

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Shameful.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: —because it is a fact that throughout the House we had entertained hopes for some kind of new deal in education with the advent of the right

hon. Lady to her present position. It is ominous that this curtailment of free speech should be the first fruit of her arrival at the Dispatch Box.
The Agriculture Bill has not even completed its stages in the House of Lords, so we do not know what amendments there are to it. We do not even know what the arguments are, yet the Government have decided to curtail discussion of it in this House.
We had hoped for a less political approach to education from the right hon. Lady. After all, she has had the courage to jettison straight away the idea of monster-sized classes, to which the Government have been wedded for so long, and she has jumped on the ill-thought-out proposal of the Schools Council to abolish O-levels and to have a common examination for the CSE and O and A-levels. We welcome that, too, but we are sorry that the right hon. Lady has lent her prestige to this manoeuvre today, and the feebleness of her arguments indicates that her heart was nowhere near the words that she was mouthing.
What were the arguments that the right hon. Lady adduced? First, she said that this Bill had had more time devoted to it than was given to the 1944 Education Act. There is a simple reason for that. It is that the 1944 measure was a good Act, whereas this is a bad Bill, and that is why it needed full and detailed discussion.
The right hon. Lady then said that it was a short Bill—a rather interesting adaptation of the old illegitimate baby argument, namely, that it was only a small one. Surely the right hon. Lady must realise that what is important about a Bill is not its length but its content. It is what it does that is important.
What does this Bill do? First, it destroys the 1944 settlement, which has lasted for so long and on which the education system has been built. It destroys the powers of local authorities over the organisation of schools, and it takes away for the first time in our history the power of voluntary schools and voluntary-aided schools to organise themselves in accordance with their own wishes. This is a major Bill. It may have only 10 clauses, but the effects of this measure if it passes into law will be felt for many years to come.
The right hon. Lady's third argument is equally irrelevant and erroneous. She said that the Bill was not discussed at length in the Lords, but of course it was, and that is why it should be discussed here. The Upper House spent six days discussing this Bill, and it can draw on a range of education expertise that is probably greater than even this House can provide.
My noble Friend Lord Eccles made an important contribution to the debate and Lord Alexander of Potterhill, whose name is respected throughout the education world, made many important and vital contributions to the discussion. Points were made in the House of Lords because they could not be made here as the Report stage had been so drastically curtailed by Government action. It is an insult to the Upper House to say that we can discuss in six hours all the matters that it took six days to discuss. It makes a mockery of having a bicameral legislature if this is to be the attitude of the Government to discussion in the other place.
The guillotine motion is wrong, because the Upper House has not attempted to thwart the will of the House of Commons over the Bill. It has not attempted to reject the principle behind the Bill and defeat it. Members of the other place have accepted it, but what they have attempted to do is to say "We do not like this principle, and we do not like this Bill, but we shall try to improve it; we shall try to make it educationally and practicably viable", and if one looks through the 18 amendments that the Lords have tabled one sees that every one of them fits into that classification.
The first amendment seeks to write into the Bill Section 76 of the Education Act 1944 which says that parents have the right to educate their children according to their wishes. That is what the Prime Minister was saying in his speech at Ruskin College on 18th October. This is a test of whether the Prime Minister meant what he said. If he meant that the opinion of parents should be retained, why not accept the amendment, instead of guillotining discussion of it?
I take at random Amendment No. 4, which provides that there should be an exception for special schools in mathematics. There already are exceptions for

special schools for music and dancing. Music and dancing are important, but even as a former Minister for the Arts I think that maths is more important than either for our future.
In his speech at Ruskin College did not the Prime Minister say that a new deal was needed in maths to supply the needs of industry? The right hon. Lady nods. Why does she not accept this reasonable amendment instead of guillotining it and preventing it from being discussed? All that is being proposed by Lord Eccles, supported by Cross-Bench, Liberal and other Peers, is that we should allow this exception because we have a mathematical crisis in our schools.
Amendment No. 13 provides for an inquiry into secondary education. Why cannot the right hon. Lady accept that? Why is she curtailing discussion of that? The inquiry is not to be in comprehensive schools only but in all secondary schools and with an impartial chairman. What possible objection can she have to that?
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 provide that comprehensive schools shall not be imposed unless adequate resources are available. That is not Conservatism, Liberalism or Socialism or any other "ism", it is pure common sense. Why cannot the hon. Lady bring herself to accept that? These amendments are not political. They are reasonable and reasoned. They are not political in nature. they are educational. They are supported not only in the Lords but throughout the education world and the country by those concerned about the future of our education system.
By tabling these amendments the Lords are, not for the first time, much more in touch with political opinion than the Government. The House of Lords is speaking for the people on this. If the Government doubt it, let them put it to the test in a General Election.

4.32 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I should like to take the House away from the exaggerated language we have heard in the debate and back to the terms of the motion. In this motion provision is made for six hours' debate on the amendments to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill and so six hours' debate on the amendments to the Education Bill. The Bills have


been considered adequately and in detail in all their stages so far. The House is now being asked to order the remaining stages so as to ensure that the Bills, which have had critical examination on the Floor of the House, in Committee and in another place, shall be placed on the statute book in sensible form and within a reasonable time.
My right hon. Friend and others have made special reference to the Education Bill. There is nothing I should like better than to spend the remaining minutes talking about the merits of that Bill. I remind the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) that this Bill abolishes selection and prevents local authorities from organising their schools so that labels are placed on children at an early age in their school career. I was under the impression that that had the backing of education opinion throughout the country. To talk about curtailing discussion of a Bill on which we have already spent 100 hours is to stand logic on its head.
I wish to concentrate on the important Bill for which I have had some responsibility, the Rent (Agriculture) Bill. This deals with the agricultural tied cottages system, which has been the cause of a sense of grievance to agricultural workers for a great number of years. The Bill was considered by a Standing Committee of the House and the proceedings there were subject neither to a second sittings motion nor to any restriction of time in any way. The Committee sat for nearly 30 hours.
The contentious amendments to the Bill which have been inserted in another place fall into five distinct groups. I want the House to know this because of some of the things that have been said, especially by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who referred to the House not having the opportunity to discuss certain issues and who said that the Government were preventing that discussion. The amendments cover topics on which the Opposition and the Government take markedly different viewpoints. All these topics were discussed during the passage of the Bill in Committee and on Report. No new ground is being covered. That is also true of the Education Bill.

Mr. Peyton: What chance are we to have to look at the 40 Government

amendments made in Committee in the Lords? There were 40 Government amendments out of the total of 59 amendments.

Mr. Armstrong: To compare the number of amendments with the time allotted is not a fair comparison, as anybody with any experience in the House would know. The amendments to which the right hon. Member for Yeovil refers are technical amendments and largely agreed. There is no contention about them. I cannot anticipate the results of Report stage in another place but I should be surprised if further substantial changes were made. The situation therefore is that six hours are being allocated in which time we shall be considering technical changes which are not contentious, and five or so issues which have already been subject to careful scrutiny and examination both here and in another place. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman need not express his commiserations.
My right hon. Friend and I believe that the timetable motion is sensible, relevant and justified. During the whole discussion on the Bill—almost 44 hours in this House and more than 20 hours in another place with Report still to come—Opposition Members have continually conceded that the present system of tied cottages is often inhuman and creates hardship and misery for agricultural workers. They then support amendments which would have the effect of prolonging that system. This motion is a genuine move to forestall any attempt to prolong discussion beyond what is reasonable—

Mr. Francis Pym: Mr. Francis Pym (Cambridgeshire) rose—

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Thanet, West) rose—

Mr. Armstrong: I will not give way. The Opposition Front Bench has had rather more time than we have had.
To spin out arguments about the Bill—going over issues which have been seriously debated on the Floor, in Committee and in another place—is to threaten the freedom of farm workers to enjoy security in their homes, irrespective of the terms of employment included in their contracts. This is a freedom that most people take for granted. This is an


injustice which the Government are not prepared to tolerate.
The agricultural tied cottage has been an issue inside and outside the House for many years. To ensure that Parliament comes to a decision—far from denying free speech in Britain as the Leader of the Opposition has suggested—is an act of justice long overdue to a hardworking and vital group in our community. Ample time to complete the Bill is allowed in this motion.
On that basis I commend the motion to the House. No new ground is being broken. The Opposition have to make up their minds whether they are prepared to remove a long-standing injustice for

one of the most hard-working groups in the community, the agricultural workers. We are determined to do so.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I should like to try to set aside some of the claptrap we have just heard. First, Scotland does not regard such a Bill as necessary. Secondly—
It being One hour after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [20th July], to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them:—

The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 296.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Order of 20th July 1976 be supplemented as follows—

Lords Amendments

1. The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to either Bill shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.

2. For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;


(b) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended,
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment,
 (iii) put forthwith, with respect to each remaining Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment, and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
(c) so soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to such Lords Amendments.

Stage subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The Poceedings on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.

4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—


(a) put forthwith the Question on any Motion which is made by a Minister of the Crown on any item,
(b) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment, or other proposal,
(c) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) So soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Proposals, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Motion made by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Proposal.

Supplemental

5.—(1) In this paragraph 'the Proceedings' means Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, or on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown under Standing Order No. 57(1) (Lords amendments) that the Proceedings shall be considered forthwith.

(3) Paragraph 1 of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the Proceedings.

(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the Proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(5) If the Proceedings are set down on any day as first Government Order of the Day paragraph 4 of the Order of 20th July 1976 (Private Business) shall apply as if that day were an allotted day.

(6) If the Proceedings were interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

HEALTH SERVICES BILL AND DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

4.55 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): I beg to move,
That the Order of 20th July 1976 be supplemented as follows—

Lords Amendments

1. The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to either Bill shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.

2. For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended,
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment,
(iii) put forthwith, with respect to each remaining Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment, and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
(c) so soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to such Lords Amendments.

Stage subsequent to first consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.

4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(a) put forthwith the Question on any motion which is made by a Minister of the Crown on any item,
(b) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment or other Proposal,
(c) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) So soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Proposals, Mr. Speaker shall put forth with a separate Question on any other motion made by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Proposal.

Supplemental

5.—(1) In this Paragraph "the Proceedings" means Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, or on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion moved by the Minister of the Crown under Standing Order No. 57(1) (Lords amendments) that the Proceedings shall be considered forthwith.

(3) Paragraph 1 of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the Proceedings.

(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the Proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the question on such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(5) If the Proceedings are set down on any day as first Government Order of the Day paragraph 7 of the Order of 20th July 1976 (Private Business) shall apply as if that day were an allotted day.

(6) If the Proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matters that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

After the resounding success of the victory on the last motion, it is essential that this one should be carried if the declared will of the House is to be fulfilled, Their Lordships—[interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unfair to anyone trying to address the House that there should be this noise. Perhaps the Minister could wait one second for hon. Members who appear to need refreshment to leave.

Mr. Ennals: No doubt they will be drowning their sorrows.
Their Lordships have their rights and duties, but it is no part of their rôle to seek to block action already clearly determined by this elected Chamber.
My right hon, Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will deal later with the Dock Work Regulation Bill. I would simply say on that that the Government are firmly of the view that the Bill is essential to the secure stability of employment for dock workers and the creation and maintenance of a permanent labour force of a size and composition appropriate to the efficient operation of the industry and that it should become law this Session.
The Health Services Bill is an important measure which the Government believe should be enacted this Session. The deep wounds that dissension over the issue of pay beds has inflicted on the NHS must be healed. This dispute has gone on too long and the sooner it is healed the better. Indeed, there is positive evidence, supported in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that more and more people who understand the NHS are coming to realise that the only remedy for those wounds is the passing of the Bill. The Government are therefore determined that it shall not fail for lack of time.
There can be no question that the Bill has had adequate, thorough and careful scrutiny in Committee. In Standing Committee D, 29 sittings and 74 hours were devoted to its line-by-line scrutiny. We dealt with every clause and every amendment and we had time over at the end. Another two days were then set aside for consideration on Report. Originally, a motion of the House provided for one day but it was decided to respond to requests by hon. Members opposite and add the second day. On Third Reading the Bill got a majority larger than it had on Second Reading. There is no doubt that the will of the House has already been expressed.
I suspect that the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) will say that it was not possible for the House to consider all the Opposition amendments on Report and that Part III was not debated at all. I accept that—

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It is true.

Mr. Ennals: Of course it is so: I do not deny it. Two days were available—14 hours—for Report and Third Reading. If the Opposition decided to use the time as they did, they cannot protest to us. We gave them the time and it was their decision how it should be employed.
Few measures of the length of this Bill have received such close and meticulous scrutiny. After all, it is a Bill which seeks to give effect, by and large, to a set of proposals which emerged after protracted discusson between my Department—also under my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)—and representatives of the medical and dental professions, and which a majority of consultants who took part in the ballot accepted as the basis for legislation. Therefore, we have a commitment to put this legislation through Parliament in this Session.
The Government's case is clear. Both Bills have been considered in great detail by the House. On the Dock Work Regulation Bill there was an even longer Committee stage, running to 100 hours. The Opposition have the effrontery to suggest that we are trying to curtail serious debate on these issues, but both Bills have been considered in great detail by the House.
Amendments have been proposed in another place most of which are identical with those which have already been fully considered and decided upon in Committee and the House. If their Lordships should pass any amendments it will be easy to determine which of them upset the carefully balanced compromise on which the Bill has been based. There is no reason to go into detail over ground which has already been comprehensively covered.
Temporary setbacks in Walsall, North and Workington in no way upset the Government's determination to govern and to fulfil their commitment both to Parliament and the people.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Not for the first time has the Secretary of State mistaken government for the churning out of this mad sausage-machine of ill-digested legislation which the House and the country do not want. The debate is concerned with dockers and doctors, and their euphony is not the only thing they have in common. Both Bills are wholly irrelevant to the nation's dreadful economic plight. Both Bills are widely detested, and their detestation goes far beyond the ranks of the official Opposition. Both Bills have opponents on the Labour Benches in both Houses. Both Bills will damage the interests of ordinary working people. Both Bills are nothing more than sops to a few politically-motivated trade union bosses.
The Dock Work Regulation Bill had but one day on Report in the House of Commons. Because of that the debate was restricted to two new clauses, with the second of which were taken several amendments on small ports. The whole of the rest of the Bill was entirely undiscussed on the Floor of the House. The other place made a great many amendments, 17 of which were reached after Divisions. Those amendments included the reintroduction of the former practice of the holding of a public inquiry for the extension of the dock registration scheme, the reduction of the dockers' corridor from five miles to half a mile and the exclusion from the Bill of a large number of the small ports, many of which, if the Bill goes through in the form in which it left the House, would he due for extinction.
These are all absolutely key issues, they are all the concern of every establishment threatened by the Bill and they involve, I suspect, the constituencies of well over 150 hon. Members, including myself, because I have constituents who work at the Frigoscandia cold store in Stratford. It is hardly surprising to read that on Report Mr. Deputy Speaker said:
I have never seen such a list of hon. Members anxious to take part in the debate."—[Official Report, 26th July 1976; Vol. 916, c. 121.]
How few did!
Each of these three major issues would justify a six-hour debate on its own, yet we have only six hours for all three and

for all the other amendments which will come back from another place. We do not know how many amendments there will be, because another place is sitting on Third Reading today and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has said, there are many amendments down for debate during Third Reading.
Government supporters cannot claim that this is all the work of Tory peers. The Dock Work Regulation Bill was attacked by three former Labour Cabinet Ministers. All the votes bar one—which was on a minor issue—were supported by Cross-Bench peers and, whereas the Labour peers on other issues were able to muster 65, 70 or more votes, only 27 Labour peers voted against excluding small ports and only 34 Labour peers voted against the half-mile corridor. As The Guardian rightly said on Friday:
the maximum number of Socialists is wanted to give extra moral weight to Labour Bills.
Votes like that, mean not only that the Dork Work Regulation Bill has no moral weight but that Socialist indignation against another place is nothing more than empty rhetoric. The Socialists cannot even get their own Members into the Lobby to support their Bills.
I am indebted to Terence Lancaster's column in the Daily Mirror for the information that in one month this autumn the Government in another place lost 46 Divisions, half of which would have been won if 48 per cent. of the Labour peers had been there. The Government cannot conceivably argue that the Tory peers are frustrating the will of the Commons.
No, the House of Lords is performing its rightful task under legislation passed when Clem Attlee was Prime Minister and when the Labour majority in this place was 200 over all other parties. The function of the upper House will be rendered entirely purposeless unless this House has a proper opportunity to debate Lords amendments. If we are not given time to debate Lords amendments, the answer is given by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) in The Times this morning:
Choosing to bundle these Bills through in a week is inviting the Lords to reinstate its amendments.
That is the view of a Labour Member and I leave it to him to express it.
The Dock Work Regulation Bill is wholly unnecessary. It is not even a manifesto commitment, so that arguments about the manifesto are irrelevant. Its only virtue is that it displays for all to see the craven subservience of a Government prepared to flout the electorate and damage the economy in order to gratify the ambitions of one of its power-hungry trade union masters.
On the Health Services Bill our case is even stronger. The Committee stage in another place started only on Thursday. Even as we discuss this motion the other place is discussing the Health Services Bill in Committee. How can the Government claim that six hours will be enough to discuss the amendments that will come back from another place? According to the Order Paper, so far 142 amendments have been tabled in another place, 30 of which are amendments on which we tied in Committee—a point to which the Secretary of State made no reference. The amendments were lost or the clauses stand in the Bill solely by the Chairman's casting vote. Those 30 amendments received not one word of debate when the Bill came back here on Report. There has been no opportunity for the House to make up its mind upon those amendments. They stand solely by the Chairman's casting vote.
It must, of course, be for another place to decide what to do, but I am advised that it would be perfectly proper for all 30 of those tied amendments which were never discussed here on Report to be returned to us to enable us to reach a decision as we have not yet done upon those amendments and clauses.
It addition, the Government introduced amendments here on Report which were not discussed and on which, therefore, no view was expressed. There are at least six substantial new points on the Lords Order Paper which have not been considered in the House of Commons. The Government in another place undertook to look again at one point which was considered in Committee and on the Floor of the House and rejected each time, namely, compensation for consultants who lose their private practice and cannot be given full-time consultancies in the National Health Service.
The Government argue that we have had enough time. The Secretary of State said that there was one sitting left over in Committee, but the House should know that the right hon. Gentleman specifically requested us to finish the new clauses by lunch-time on 3rd August because several of his hon. Friends wished to get away to their constituencies. To throw that back at us and to say that it shows that we had more than enough time in Committee to discuss these matters is not only absurd but is a breach of the conventions of the House.
To suggest that it was up to us to decide how to spend the time on Report and that we wasted such time as we had is rubbish. By far the longest debate we had on Report related to New Clause 2, which was a Left-wing amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) and which also took in another clause. That debate lasted 4 hours 48 minutes, of which Labour speeches occupied 2 hours 21 minutes. There were two minority spokesmen, whose contributions took 17 minutes, and other Opposition speakers made contributions lasting only 2 hours 10 minutes, including three of my hon. Friends who did not serve on the Committee. As a result, 47 amendments on Report were left entirely undebated. The majority of those were amendments on which we had tied in Standing Committee. Yet if the other place decides to return the other amendments to this House it will be impossible for them all to be debated here, even if confined to the 30 tied amendments that were guillotined on Report. If we were to discuss 30 amendments in a period of six hours, that would allow a 12-minute debate on each, during which time would have to be found for Divisions.
This is a gagging of parliamentary debate and it is an outrage. It is all very well for Labour Members, including Government spokesmen, to giggle, but they know that after the events of last week none of their seats is safe.
My hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) and Workington (Mr. Page) have taken their seats today, and that represents a visible demand by the people that the Government should drop all this offensive legislation. It shows the Government's arrogant determination to force through this legislation


despite last week's results in the by-elections and it demonstrates the hollow pretensions of the Labour Party to be a democratic party. I invite my hon. Friends to join me in dividing against this motion.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I shall be brief because I know that many hon. Members wish to take part in this debate.
I wish to deal specifically with the Dock Work Regulation Bill. Some of the arguments advanced from the Labour Benches are bound to be repetitious since many of them apply to the provisions of the Education Bill and the National Health Services Bill.
Hon. Members spent a considerable amount of time dealing with the docks industry and the Opposition both in Committee and on Report displayed a great deal of ignorance about the industry. However, it has been surpassed only by the obvious ignorance of the other place in its comments on the industry.
Those who work in the industry and understand it recognise that there is bound to be a major change in the structure of the industry to enable the opportunities for employment to be preserved. They appreciate that there must be some regulation of the situation from the centre.
Although the Bill does not deal with the reorganisation of the National Dock Labour Board, new powers will be given to the board and that will be the beginning of a changing process. Those who know the docks industry appreciate that, because of technological and other changes, there has been a tremendous amount of disorder in the past. Those changes have reduced the labour force and at the same time have converted dock labour into a new form.
These problems have not been fully dealt with by the National Dock Labour Board in its existing framework, although in postwar years that board has played a tremendous part in organising the docks industry and securing better conditions of work for its employees. There is now a need to review the situation since the board has been in existence for 30 years. The new task must be seen against the changes in the industry, bear-

ing in mind security of employment for dock workers.
If the House of Lords persists in its attitude of making the decisions of the House of Commons abortive, it may compel people in the docks industry outside to take action against the decisions of the other place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Blackmail."] I believe that those people in the industry will be as entitled to take such action as are the members of the House of Lords who have taken decisions to wreck this Bill. I represent people in the industry whose future will depend on some changes taking place, but members of the other place will not be affected if the Bill falls. Therefore, it may in the end be the responsibility of the people in the industry outside to determine the future of their industry as affected by this Bill.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. David Price: I am tempted to take up the first point of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) who at the conclusion of his remarks made an unconstitutional threat, but I shall refrain from so doing. I do not wish to discuss the merits of either of these Bills, I wish only to deal with the more specific point involving the manner in which this House has been treated in this motion.
The kindest thing I can say about it is that it is on the lines of a blind date. In my younger days I might have been attracted to the idea of a blind date in a hospital or on the docks, but certainly the idea of a blind date in terms of legislation is not at all acceptable.
I raised this point with Mr. Speaker when these debates began. I pointed out that of the five Bills before the House on only one, the Education Bill, were there Government proposals to agree or disagree with the Lords amendments. Without the Lords amendments and Government proposals before us as to the way in which we should handle them, I do not believe that we are in a position to determine whether the amount of time proposed to be allocated by the Government is correct. That is a simple parliamentary point and it contains no party political element.
I should have thought that Labour Members, particularly those who sit below the Gangway and who may soon suffer a transfer of geography in the


House, might think about preserving their own future position. I would hope that some Labour Members still care about preserving the rules of this House, both explicitly and implicitly.
I do not deny the Government's right to deal with Lords amendments by bringing forward timetable motions for the consideration of the House. In regard to the Education Bill, we have the necessary information in order to debate the timetable. But in regard to the Dock Work Regulation Bill and the National Health Services Bill the situation is different. We are concerned with whether we can give proper consideration to these proposals within a debating time of only six hours. In the case of the Dock Work Regulation Bill the other place has not yet even concluded its consideration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] If such cries are to be heard from the Government Front Bench, I must remind the House of what was said in the Cousins Report in respect of the situation in London which affects particularly Clause 6. I shall not go into that matter now, but it reflects a changing situation in the docks. Therefore, the situation is different from the one that faced the House on Second Reading. There is a new situation.
I believe that we should not pass this motion because we have not the necessary information before us. The job of the Leader of the House is not only to be a fixer of Government business but to lead all parts of the House. The right hon. Gentleman, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, has failed in that duty. I remember that when the right hon. Gentleman sat on the Opposition Benches I regarded him as a great parliamentary figure and a person who cared for parliamentary procedure and the rights of Parliament. But that is not how I regard the Leader of the House today. I only hope that he finds his jackboots comfortable.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Time is of the essence of this debate and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) did, I shall keep my comments brief.
I deeply resent the idea that we shall not have proper debate after all the time

spent in the House of Commons, both in Committee and on the Floor, on the two Bills which we are now considering and on which we have still to spend more time. I give an immediate answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Eastleigh when he asks whether we shall have enough time. I reply unequivocally with regard to the Health Services Bill, the pay beds Bill, that we shall have more than adequate time. It is one of the thinnest Bills with which I have ever had to deal in the House. About four points of fundamental difference between the parties arose, and those four points have been rehearsed and examined time and again both here and in the other place. We are thus landed at a stage when we can no longer have the same questions raised again and again.
What is happening in the other place is a rehearsal of the same arguments. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) made some play of the fact that in Standing Committee we often had a tied vote. If there are eight Opposition Members on one side and eight Government Members on the other, I cannot see how one can avoid having a tied vote time after time, and that was our situation.
In my view, comparing the present Health Services Bill with the massive reorganisation Bill of 1973, with its 54 clauses, the time we have had and shall have is more than adequate for us and for the other place.
Moreover, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, anyone who has concern and care for the National Health Service—in which I include hon. Members on both sides, since that concern and care is shared in all quarters of the House—is aware that the longer things remain in limbo, the more difficult it is to resolve difficult situations and relationships. That applies, in particular to the pay beds issue. Argument has gone on between the ancillary workers, on the one hand, and medical staff, on the other, and it is therefore of the utmost importance that matters be resolved at an early date, since there are so many other questions of far greater importance.
We are talking here about 4,500 beds out of a total of 500,000. We are talking about tens of thousands of private patients compared with 5½ million ordinary


patients. It is, therefore, for the resolution of this problem that the guillotine motion comes before the House again.
To my right hon. Friend I say that of course we shall get the Bill, and six hours will be adequate. If, by some strange chance, we do not get it through this Session, naturally, the Parliament Act will give it to us before August next year. But I urge that we do not have to use the Parliament Act for the reason put by my right hon. Friend—that the sooner the matter is resolved, the sooner we can get on with more important questions, and the sooner we shall see the end of the symptoms of dissatisfaction and conflict in the service and start to build up morale—not only the morale of doctors, but the morale of all those who work in and who use the service.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I shall refer in a moment to the constitutional question raised by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt). I wish to deal first with the question of the Dock Work Regulation Bill. I was very surprised by the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), because in his last few sentences he said, in effect, that, irrespective of what the House of Lords said, irrespective of what the House of Commons said and irrespective of what Parliament said, the dockers would have their way. I believe that that is what he intended to convey, and we shall have to look in Hansard tomorrow for it. I am sure that that was the gist of what he meant. I can only say that, if any confrontation does take place, not only we but the country will know where the blame lies.
It has been said that the Bill has been debated at length in Committee, but it has not been debated at length on Report in the House. The unique feature of the present docks Bill is that, whereas other such Bills in the past have concerned only one industry, the docks industry, and usually only a handful of major port areas, this Bill affects the whole coastal area of Scotland, Wales and England and, in addition, it affects many industries not remotely concerned with the docks industry.
That is why the Dock Work Regulation Bill requires the fullest debate on

the Floor of the House. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) said, not only are coastal constituencies affected by the Bill but, much further than that, many inland constituencies are affected, too, since the dockers' corridor extends along the tidal rivers. Therefore, every possible opportunity should be given to those who did not serve on the Standing Committee to represent their constituency interests on the Floor of the House.
The Report stage was restricted to one day, which did not allow many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite to speak for their constituency interests, although they had received many representations from companies in their constituencies simply asking how the Bill would affect them. It certainly will affect them, and it is pointless for hon. Members on the Government side to say that the anxiety about the Bill has been worked up by the Press and it is all a great Tory ruse to excite and inflame people who work in warehouses or cold stores with the fear that their jobs are in danger.
We all know from the volume of correspondence received from our constituencies that many companies are seriously worried. It is absurd to argue that it is all the doing of a Tory Press. Are we asked to imagine that workers in warehouses and cold stores read partisan articles in the Daily Telegraph, nudging their workmates and asking them to pass them the latest inflammatory article in the Investors Chronicle and Stock Exchange Gazette? The truth is nothing of the sort. Everybody knows that many people in the cargo-handling industry will be affected by the Bill. Therefore, the fullest possible time should be given for hon. Members to represent their constituents' interests on the Floor.
In introducing the motion, the Secretary of State said that the Bill was essential—essential for the cargo-handling industry and essential for our import and export trade. Let him try to persuade the people from the IMF that the Bill is essential for the regeneration of British industry. They will not believe him, and he cannot expect us to believe him. The Bill is in no way essential to the regeneration of British industry or the stimulation of our exports.
I come now to a point of even deeper significance. I do not object to the use of the guillotine. Governments of all complexions have the power to use the guillotine. But when a Government use the guillotine constantly on a whole series of measures, as the present Government have been doing, they undoubtedly strain the ancient links which bind our constitution. Debates in Standing Committee and on the Floor are essential to the life of Parliament, and the House must be exceedingly jealous about surrendering any time for such debate.
When the wheel of fortune turns, as inevitably it will, and hon. Members opposite find themselves on these Benches, they will agree with every word that I am saying. Indeed, the great argument against the Government's present policy and conduct is the attitude of the Leader of the House himself, who, when he sat on these Benches, and even when he had another position on the Government side, constantly opposed the use of the guillotine to curtail debate. Until he assumed his present office, he was the embodiment of debate in the House. He was one of the greatest parliamentarians. [An HON. MEMBER: "He still is."] Then why is he pressing through this guillotine motion to curtail debate? The answer is that he has joined the Executive, and he realises, as all who join the Executive do, that the Government must have their way.
One of the most worrying features of our constitutional history over the past few years is that there has been a significant shift in favour of the power of the Executive. The time has come for the House of Commons to assert its position as a legislature. We must examine legislation properly. The House of Commons, the Mother of Parliaments, has become a sort of midwife who produces more bad legislation more quickly than does any other legislature. That is one of the reasons why this House as a body is held in contempt in the country.
Second, we must reassert our power to call the Executive to account. Part of that power lies in the preservation of a second Chamber—certainly, a reformed second Chamber—a second Chamber

which is elected and which can review and improve Bills which we send to it.
If we are not prepared to accept this measure of constitutional change and reform, the trend that I have been talking about will continue, and the Executive will become more and more powerful until we become part of a single-party, single-chamber constitution. That is the road that we are sliding down.
I believe that all those checks and balances which have been built into our constitutional practice over the years and, indeed, centuries no longer operate. The most worrying thing about our constitutional practice today is that those checks and balances which are supposed to operate within the House no longer check and no longer balance.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: One of the funniest remarks so far today was made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee). He invited the Government to create 200 new Labour peers. I do not know whether he was thinking of the ennoblement of some of his hon. Friends. If that were to happen, it might leave the Labour Party somewhat vulnerable in the by-elections which would follow. But perhaps he was thinking that the Government might ennoble people who are not Members of this House. Yet, methinks, are there 200 Socialists left? Are there 200 people left in the country who would support the Government's line?
I remind the hon. Gentleman that Labour peers already in another place cannot bring themselves to support these measures, not even to draw the £13·50 per day which is the reward for going along there and voting. What is it that makes the hon. Gentleman believe that the Government could find 200 or 2,000, or 200,000 Labour peers to support this legislation?
The doctrine of the mandate is suspect because the only scrap of justification which the Government have for these motions today and for clinging to these Bills at all is that some time, a long time ago, they had a mandate for them. Let us examine this doctrine. The mandate, such as it was, was a 38 per cent. vote of the electorate two years ago. Do the


Government now have a 38 per cent. vote of the electorate? I see that the Secretary of State for Employment is grimacing. Barrow-in-Furness, which he represents, is very near Workington. He, too, might be in the unemployed queue if he had to go for re-election.
I do not believe that the people of the country have the slightest confidence in the policies represented by these five Bills. They do not believe that they are the right things to do. Let us look at the effect upon the economy which the Government have had. They have brought the country to a really low pass. So I believe that the vote which will take place in about 20 minutes' time is of monumental importance. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) is going to grace us with her presence, or whether she believes that her baby is more important. Indeed, I think that the child unborn may rule the voting on this issue.
I am glad that the Leader of the House is here because I want to say a few words about him. He and the Prime Minister remind me of King Lear and Gloucester. I do not know quite which is which, although I imagine that the Prime Minister is Gloucester, because the Leader of the House looks, in my imagination, so like King Lear himself. They are wandering about, lost and depressed; their army is routed; both of them are blind—over one eye is written "Workington" and over the other is written "Walsall, North". They are wandering midst mist and fog after defeat in battle. I remind the Leader of the House of King Lear's words to Gloucester:
Get thee glass eyes;
And, like a scurvy politician, seem
To see the things thous dost not.
to which Gloucester replied,
The king is mad;
At that stage, Edgar said,
… methinks, I hear the beaten drum.
It is the beaten drum that we hear. Why do the Government persist with this legislation? Do they not realise that they are lost, defeated and beaten? Will they not at least accept the common will, the democratic desire for them to leave office, take away their legislation and withdraw this motion?

5.37 p.m.

Sir George Young: I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) said about the guillotining of the Health Services Bill. It is different from the others we are discussing today. First, it is at the back of the queue. It is the last of the five Bills to go to the Lords. It would help if we could have some idea of its future timetable, when it will come back to this House, and what scope there will be for reversing Lords amendments and perhaps giving the Lords another opportunity to look at the Bill. Will there be time for this process of consultation and consideration to take place?
Secondly, the Bill is different because a large number of points in Committee were resolved only by the casting vote of the Chair, and this House has not had an opportunity itself to resolve those points. The time scale envisaged for the Bill now will not give the House an opportunity to come to a final view on those matters.
Thirdly, it is a discourtesy that the motion should have been announced even before the other place had started its discussion of the Bill in Committee. The Lords started considering the Bill in Committee. The Lords started considering the Bill in Committee at 3.56 p.m. last Thursday, after the guillotine had been announced here. It seems rather precipitous to announce a guillotine here before the Lords have even begun their deliberations in Committee.
Then there is the matter of the tied votes. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) implied that it was perfectly natural that there should have been tied votes because there were equal numbers of both sides on the Bill. There were nine Government members of the Committee, eight from the official Opposition and one Ulster Unionist, whose voting behaviour was unpredictable, which is the best way to describe it. One reason for so many tied votes was that the Secretary of State had to absent himself on a large number of occasions in order to attend the Cabinet.
The Secretary of State said something which I believe to have been a breach of a convention. He implied that the Opposition were unable to fill the allotted


time in Committee. I think that he said that we ran out of debate and the Committee rose early. I believe that the arrangement was arrived at through the usual channels that it would be for the convenience of his hon. Friends as well as ourselves that debate should end at a certain time. I believe, therefore, that what the right hon. Gentleman said today was a breach of a convention of arrangements reached through the usual channels.
The Health Services Bill was introduced far too late in the Session, went into Committee far too late, and has gone to the other place far too late. It is intolerable that this congested timetable should have been presented to us, because the Government's own mismanagement is entirely responsible for the congestion.

Mr. Speaker: Would hon. Gentlemen be kind enough to confine themselves to speaking as briefly as possible?

5.40 p.m.

Mr. John Prescott: In the short time available I should like to answer a number of the comments about the guillotine which have come from Conservatives. Every one of us has had to take a different position on the guillotine, depending on whether we were in opposition. When we were in opposition, naturally we voted against any guillotine imposed by the previous Conservative Government. We all understand the arguments involved.
However, it is a bit much to hear Conservatives complaining about the guillotine on the Dock Work Regulation Bill, which affects only a small number of people, when they were quite prepared to impose a guillotine on the Industrial Relations Act, which affected considerably more people. Of even greater consequence was the guillotine which they imposed on the Common Market legislation which, above all other pieces of legislation, affected everybody and which was only a 12-clause measure. To that extent the Opposition are the last people to complain about this.
A number of hon. Members opposite have complained that we should be convincing the IMF, the House of Lords, in fact everybody but the House of Commons. Yet it is here the decision is made.
Another reason why I consider that we should support the Government is that I come from Humberside, where the Dock Work Regulation Bill is a very important issue. The previous Conservative Government should be aware of the riots and problems at a Hull Wharf, the reasons for which are shown in the report of the Jones-Aldington Committee, which was set up by the then Tory Government. That report showed that many dock workers were being exploited as far as hours, wages and periods of time involved were concerned. This legislation is required to rectify that position and to give these workers advantages and rates of pay equal to those enjoyed by the dockers in the registered schemes.
I have gone into this subject in greater detail in previous speeches in this House, so I shall not continue this argument. Suffice to say, that there are solid arguments why this Bill should go through, and I hope that the House will pass this motion tonight.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. David Madel: I wish to put one brief point to the Employment Secretary. He will recall that in Committee on the Dock Work Regulation Bill he said he would do his level best to avoid a guillotine. Therefore, it must come as rather a shock to him to find this Bill being guillotined, first in July and again now. If the Secretary of State reflects on what he said in Committee, the situation in the docks, in employment generally and in investment must cause him to pause for thought. Since July unemployment has gone up and uncertainty about investment in the industries affected by this Bill has increased.
The legislative record of the Department of Employment is pretty good. By that I do not mean that it is necessarily good in content, but the measures themselves—the Health and Safety at Work Bill, the Employment Protection Bill and the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill—have been pushed through very quickly. No one can say that the Department has lagged behind in putting Bills on the statute book.
But in taking this course of action on this measure the Department is getting into bad habits. If it does this now, what will it do with the industrial democracy


legislation next Session? Will the Government push that ahead without adequate discussion? If the Secretary of State goes on the way he has started there is a horrible risk that there will be inadequate discussion on industrial democracy, in the same way that there has been inadequate discussion of this Bill.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Leon Brittan: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) has been more candid and honest on this matter than anyone on the Government Front Bench. He has said that it is improper for the House of Lords to carry out the function allotted to it by a Labour piece of legislation, and that it is proper therefore for the Government to take the action which they are taking today. That amounts to treating the House of Lords and the process of legislation in that House with contempt. What is more, if the House of Lords refuses to take that contempt lying down, the hon. Member says it is right and proper to resolve the matter by industrial action. That shows a disregard for the proper constitutional practices of this country which is extremely worrying, but it is no more than a reflection of the attitude of the Government.
The Government must know that in asking the House to decide how long we should take on debating matters which the House of Lords has not yet debated they are making a travesty of two-chamber legislation. The Government cannot be serious in expecting the Houses of Commits to begin to decide how long to take on discussing matters which have not yet reached the House of Lords, as is the case in two of the Bills under consideration. It is absurd to suggest that this is the right way to go about things.
If the Government want to operate the constitution as it stands, they must organise their legislation to give the House of Lords sufficient time to consider it, so that this House can then decide how long it needs to consider what the Lords have done. If the Government find this objectionable, the procedure they should then adopt is to introduce legislation to reform the House of Lords, which we would be perfectly prepared to consider on its merits.
To go around by the back door and pretend, as the hon. Member does, that the House of Lords does not have a function allotted to it by a piece of Labour legislation, that this function should be bypassed, and that it would be proper to resort to industrial action if need be, seems to us an extremely dangerous procedure which we rightly regard as savouring of the Reichstag.

5.48 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): When the House last debated the timetable for proceedings on the Dock Work Regulation Bill and the Health Services Bill, I said that there was an urgent need to reach a conclusion on the dock work legislation. Now, nearly four months later, the urgency is even greater.
In the Standing Committee, which ran for 36 sittings, we debated carefully and at length every aspect of this Bill. Subsequent consideration brought no new aspects to light and no further or new principles were proposed. When the Bill was sent to another place, it gave it another 41 hours debate, so in all since it was introduced the Bill has been discussed for 140 hours. Its principles have been considered its details thrashed out and its desirability has in my view had more than sufficient discussion to enable this House to reach a conclusion.
In another place the inbuilt non-elected majority made a mockery of the democratic process by trying to frustrate the underlying principles of the Bill. All the amendments passed in that place against the advice of the Government have been on matters which were fully covered and approved by the House of Commons.

Mr. James Prior: Since the Secretary of State considers that the House of Lords has been making a mockery of the democratic process would he take time to explain to us the actual motion on the Order Paper and what it does?

Mr. Booth: What the motion does is quite clear. It allocates six hours to the Lords amendments and three hours on any subsequent stage and it makes provision for voting so that voting can take place after the six hours have expired on the proposition "That this House doth disagree with the Lords" and on a separate proposition for amendments


which involve matters of privilege, or matters in which this House might seek to agree with the Lords. There is no question of voting cutting into the time proposed in the motion.
Had the House of Lords raised some great new issue, we would have had to give the time, but the other place made amendments which were designed to change the composition of the National Dock Board. In Standing Committee the Opposition withdrew exactly the same amendment as the Lords have now passed. Furthermore, they did so without even forcing a Division.
The other place has inserted a new clause providing for appeals against classification. We discussed that proposition for one and a quarter hours in Standing Committee and it was defeated. On Report we discussed it again for three and a quarter hours and again it was defeated.

Mr. David Price: There might be force in the right hon. Gentleman's argument if we had before us the Lords amendments and, even more important, what the Government propose in respect of them. Maybe if the Government supported all the amendments we could dispose of the Bill in an hour, but we do not know. We have no way of determining whether the Secretary of State's argument is correct.

Mr. Booth: I have studied all the amendments passed by the House of Lords, but I do not have the time to deploy the arguments upon them now. On the two that I have mentioned, the Government propose that the decision of the Commons should be upheld.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the question of the tied votes on the Health Services Bill. Would it not be utterly deplorable if amendments were sent back to the Lords without any discussion here on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Booth: No, the Bills are coming back with Lords amendments and the question is how we should deal with them. I am suggesting that on the Dock Work Regulation Bill no new issue of principle has been raised by the other

place. Not only do the Lords amendments repeat word for word amendments which have been considered in this House, but they fail to take account of the arguments which this House accepted.
When we debate these Lords amendments we shall find, for example, that the Bill, as it has been amended, excludes all scheme ports from the scope of Clause 4(3). Clearly the other place does not understand matters which are regarded by this House and the Standing Committee as issues of major importance.
This House has had unique opportunities to consider the principles involved in the Bill. On 14th April 1975 we debated the consultative document, and we approved that document. In the debate on the Queen's Speech we debated an amendment, and on Second Reading we approved the Bill. The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) now says that the Bill is unnecessary. If it had been unnecessary it would not have been passed in principle three times by the House. It seems strange to me that a man who was a Minister in a Conservative Government which presided over two national dock strikes should set himself up as a judge of what legislation is necessary to deal with industrial relations in that industry.
The problems with which the Bill seeks to deal have grown steadily since the late 1960s. The Government believe that it is essential to deal with the underlying industrial relations problems of the industry. If the record of this Government is compared with the record of the last Conservative Administration, our success and our judgment in these matters speak for themselves. We judge the Bill to be essential for industrial peace on the docks, and on that basis I call upon my Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I call upon my hon. Friends and all other Members of the House of Commons who seek resolution of the problems confronting the docks industry to pass the motion in order that we can make a proper determination of the issue.

It being One hour after the commencement of the proceedings on the motion, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [20th July], to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them: —

The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 307.

Division No. 374.]
AYES
[4.39 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cronin, John
Gould, Bryan


Allaun, Frank
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Gourlay, Harry


Anderson, Donald
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Graham, Ted


Archer, Peter
Cryer, Bob
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Ashley, Jack
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Grocott, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Davidson, Arthur
Hardy, Peter


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelll)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Barnell, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hatton, Frank


Bates, Alf
Deakins, Eric
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Bean, R. E.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Heffer, Eric S.


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hooley, Frank


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Horam, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Dempsey, James
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Bishop, E. S.
Doig, Peter
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dormand, J. D.
Huckfield, Les


Boardman, H.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bradley, Tom
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hunter, Adam


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eadie, Alex
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Edge, Geoff
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Janner, Greville


Buchan, Norman
English, Michael
Jay, Rt Kon Douglas


Buchanan, Richard
Ennals, David
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, Fred (Caerphllly)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
John, Brynmor


Campbell, Ian
Evans, John (Newton)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Canavan, Dennis
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Cant, R. B.
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Carmichael, Nell
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Carter, Ray
Filch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Judd, Frank


Cartwright, John
Flannery, Martin
Kaufman, Gerald


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Kelley, Richard


Clemitson, Ivor
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kerr, Russell


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kllroy-Sllk, Robert


Cohen, Stanley
Ford, Ben
Kinnock, Neil


Coleman, Donald
Forrester, John
Lambie, David


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lamborn, Harry


Concannon, J. 0.
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lamond, James


Conlan, Bernard
Freeson, Reginald
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Leadbitter, Ted


Corbett, Robin
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lee, John


Cowans, Harry
George, Bruce
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Gilbert, Dr John
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Ginsburg, David
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Crawshaw, Richard
Golding, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)




Lipton, Marcus
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stoddart, David


Litterick, Tom
Ovenden, John
Stott, Roger


Lomas, Kenneth
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Strang, Gavin


Loyden, Eddie
Padley, Walter
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Luard, Evan
Palmer, Arthur
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Park, George
Swain, Thomas


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Parker, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Parry, Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McCartney, Hugh
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


McElhone, Frank
Perry, Ernest
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Phipps, Dr Colin
Tierney, Sydney


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tinn, James


MacKenzie, Gregor
Prescott, John
Tomlinson, John


Mackintosh, John P.
Price, C. (Lewisham W.)
Tomney, Frank


Maclennan, Robert
Price, William (Rugby)
Torney, Tom


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Radice, Giles
Urwin, T. W.


McNamara, Kevin
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Madden, Max
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Magee, Bryan
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Walker Harold (Doncaster)


Mahon, Simon
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Robinson, Geoffrey
Ward, Michael


Marks, Kenneth
Roderick, Caerwyn
Watkins, David


Marquand, David
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Watkinson, John


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Weetch, Ken


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rooker J. W.
weitzman, David


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Roper John
Wellbeloved, James


Maynard, Miss Joan
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Killmarnock)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Meacher, Michael
Rowlands, Ted
White, James (Pollock)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Ryman John
Whitehead, Philip


Mendelson, John
Sandelson, Neville
Whitlock, William


Mikardo, Ian
Sedgemore, Brian
Wigley, Dafydd


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Selby Harry
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Shaw Arnold (Ilford South)
Williams, Alan (Swansea w)


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Molloy, William
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Moonman, Eric
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Sillars, James
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Silverman, Jullus
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Moyle, Roland
Skinner, Dennis
Woodall, Alec


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Small, William
Woof, Robert


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Newens, Stanley
Snape, Peter
Young, David (Bolton E)


Noble, Mike
Spearing, Nigel



Oakes, Gordon
Spearing, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ogden, Eric
Stallard, A. W.
Mr. Joseph Harper and


O'Halloran, Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Mr. James Hamilton


Orbach, Maurice






NOES


Adley, Robert
Budgen, Nick
Dykes, Hugh


Aitken, Jonathan
Bulmer, Esmond
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Alison, Michael
Burden, F. A.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Elliott, Sir William


Arnold, Tom
Carlisle, Mark
Emery, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Carson, John
Eyre, Reginald


Awdry, Daniel
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Baker, Kenneth
Channon, Paul
Fairgrieve, Russell


Banks, Robert
Churchill, W. S.
Farr, John


Beith, A. J.
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fell, Anthony


Bell, Ronald
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Clegg, Waller
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Benyon, W.
Cockcroft, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Biffen, John
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Forman, Nigel


Biggs-Davison, John
Cope, John
Fowler, Norman (Sutton c' f' d)


Blaker, Peter
Cordle, John H.
Fox, Marcus


Body, Richard
Cormack, Patrick
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Corrie, John
Freud, Clement


Bottomley, Peter
Costain, A. p.
Fry, Peter


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)



Boy son, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Critchley, Julian
Galbralth, Hon. T. G. D.


Bradford, Rev Robert
Crouch, David
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Crowder, F. P.
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Brittan, Leon
Dean, Paul (N Somerest)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Brotherton, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Drayson, Burnaby
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Bryan, Sir Paul
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Goodhart, Philip


Buchanan-Smith, Allck
Dunlop, John
Goodhew, Victor


Buck, Antony
Durant, Tony
Goodlad, Alastair




Gorst, John







Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McCusker, H.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Macfarlane, Neil
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
MacGregor, John
Ross, Shephen (Isle of Wight)


Gray, Hamish
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Grieve, Percy
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Griffiths, Eldon
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Madel, David
Royle, Sir Anthony


Grist, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sainsbury, Tim


Grylls, Michael
Marten, Nell
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hall, Sir John
Mates, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mather, Carol
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maude, Angus
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Hannam, John
Mawby, Ray
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shepherd, Colin


Hastings, Stephen
Mayhew, Patrick
Shersby, Michael


Havers, Sir Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Silvester, Fred


Hawkins, Paul
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Sims, Roger


Hayhoe, Barney
Mills, Peter
Sinclair, Sir George


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Miscampbell, Norman
Skeet, T. H. H.


Heseltine, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hicks, Robert
Moate, Roger
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Higgins, Terence L.
Molyneaux, James
Speed, Keith


Holland, Philip
Monro, Hector
Spence, John


Hooson, Emlyn
Montgomery, Fergus
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Hordern, Peter
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Sproat, Iain


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morgan, Geraint
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hodgson, Robin
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Stanley, John


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Mudd, David
Stokes, John


Hurd, Douglas
Neave, Airey
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nelson, Anthony
Tapsell, Peter


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Neubert, Michael
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


James, David
Newton, Tony
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Normanton, Tom
Tebbit, Norman


Jessel, Toby
Nott, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Onslow, cranley
Thatcher, Rt Ron Margaret


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Osborn, John
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Jopling, Michael
Page, John (Harrow West)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Page, Richard (Workington)
Trotter, Neville


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Paisley, Rev Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kershaw, Anthony
Pardoe, John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Kilfedder James
Pattie, Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Kimball, Marcus
Penhaligon, David
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Percival. Ian
Wakeham, John


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kirk Sir Peter
Pink, R. Bonner
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Knight, Mrs Jill
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wall, Patrick


Knox, David
Prior, Rt Hon James
Walters, Dennis


Lamont, Norman
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Warren, Kenneth


Lane, David
Raison, Timothy
Weatherill, Bernard


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rathbone, Tim
Wells, John


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Lawrence, Ivan
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wiggin, Jerry


Lawson, Nigel
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Winterton, Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rhys williams, Sir Brandon
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Lloyd, Ian
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Younger, Hon George


Loveridge, John
Ridsdale, Julian



Luce, Richard
Rifkind, Malcolm
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


McCrindle, Robert
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

Division No.375.]
AYES
[5.55 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Allaun, Frank
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lipton, Marcus


Anderson, Donald
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Litterick, Tom


Archer, Peter
English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth


Armstrong, Ernest
Ennalas, David
Loyden, Eddle


Ashley, Jack
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Luard, Evan


Ashton, Joe
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Evans, John (Newton)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Atkinson, Norman
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Faulds, Andrew
McCartney, Hugh


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Fitch. Alan (Wigan)
McElhone, Frank


Bates, Alt
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Bean, R. E.
Flannery, Martin
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
MacKenzie, Gregor


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackintosh, John P.


Bidwell, Sydney
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maclennan, Robert


Bishop, E. S.
Ford, Ben
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Forrester, John
McNamara, Kevin


Boardman, H.
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Madden, Max


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Magee, Bryan


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Freeson, Reginald
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mahon, Simon


Bradley, Tom
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
George, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Gilbert, Dr John
Marquand, David


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ginsburg, David
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Golding, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Gould, Bryan
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Buchan, Norman
Gourlay, Harry
Maynard. Miss Joan


Buchanan, Richard
Graham, Ted
Meacher, Michael


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mendelson, John


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Grocott, Bruce
Mikardo, Ian


Campbell, Ian
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Hardy, Peter
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cant, R. B.
Harper, Joseph
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Carmichael, Neil
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Carter, Ray
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Molloy, William


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Moonman, Eric


Cartwright, John
Hatton, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Clemitson, Ivor
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Hooley, Frank
Moyle, Roland


Cohen, Stanley
Horam, John
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Coleman, Donald
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Newens, Stanley


Concannon, J. D.
Huckfield, Les
Noble, Mike


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Oakes, Gordon


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ogden, Eric


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Halloran, Michael


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orbach, Maurice


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hunter, Adam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Ovenden, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Cronin, John
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Padley, Walter


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Palmer, Arthur


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Janner, Greville
Park, George


Cryer, Bob
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Parker, John


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Parry, Robert


Cunningham, Or J. (Whiteh)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pavitt, Laurie


Dalyell, Tarn
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Pendry, Tom


Davidson, Arthur
John, Brynmor
Perry, Ernest


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Davies, Denzil (Llanelll)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Prescott, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Judd, Frank
Radice, Giles


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Kaufman, Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Richardson, Miss Jo


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Doig, Feter
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dormand, J. D.
Kinnock, Neil
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lambie, David
Robinson, Geoffrey


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamborn, Harry
Roderick, Caerwyn


Dunn, James A.
Lamond, James
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Dunnett, Jack
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwynett)
Leadbitter, Ted
Rooker, J. W.


Eadie, Alex
Lee, John
Roper, John


Edge, Geoff
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Rose, Paul B.



Lever. Rt Hon Harold
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)







Rowlands, Ted
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Weitzman, David


Ryman, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wellbeloved, James


Sandelson, Neville
Swain, Thomas
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Sedgemore, Brian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
White, James (Pollock)


Selby, Harry
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Whitehead, Phillip


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Whitlock, William


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Thome, Stan (Preston South)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)
Tierney, Sydney
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Tinn, James
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Tomlinson, John
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Sillars, James
Tomney, Frank
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Silverman, Julius
Torney, Tom
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Skinner, Dennis
Urwin, T. W.
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Small, William
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Woodall, Alec


Snape, Peter
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Woof, Robert


Spearing, Nigel
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Spriggs, Leslie
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Stallard, A. W.
Ward, Michael



Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Watkins, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stott, Roger
Watkinson, John
Mr. James Hamilton and


Strang, Gavin
Weetch, Ken
Mr. David Stoddart.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Aitken, Jonathan
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Henderson, Douglas


Alison, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Heseltine, Michael


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Drayson, Burnaby
Hicks, Robert


Arnold, Tom
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Higgins, Terence L.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Dunlop, John
Hodgson, Robin


Awdry, Daniel
Durant, Tony
Holland, Philip


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Dykes, Hugh
Hooson, Emlyn


Baker, Kenneth
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hordern, Peter


Banks, Robert
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Beith, A. J.
Elliott, Sir William
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bell, Ronald
Emery, Peter
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Eyre, Reginald
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Benyon, W.
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hunt, John (Bromley)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hurd, Douglas


Biffen, John
Farr, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Biggs-Davison, John
Fell, Anthony
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Blaker, Peter
Finsberg, Geoffrey
James, David


Body, Richard
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Jessel, Toby


Bottomley, Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Forman, Nigel
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Jopling, Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fox, Marcus
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Brittan, Leon
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Freud, Clement
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Brotherton, Michael
Fry, Peter
Kershaw, Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Kilfedder, James


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Kimball, Marcus


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Buck, Antony
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Budgen, Nick
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Kirk, Sir Peter


Bulmer, Esmond
Glyn, Dr Alan
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Burden, F. A.
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Knight, Mrs Jill


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Goodhart, Philip
Knox, David


Carlisle, Mark
Goodhew, Victor
Lamont, Norman


Carson, John
Goodlad, Alastair
Lane, David


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gorst, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Channon, Paul
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Churchill, W. S.
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Lawrence, Ivan


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Lawson, Nigel


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Gray, Hamish
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grieve, Percy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Clegg, Walter
Griffiths, Eldon
Lloyd, Ian


Cockcroft, John
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Loveridge, John


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Grist, Ian
Luce, Richard


Cope, John
Grylls, Michael
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Cordle, John H.
Hall, Sir John
MacCormick, Iain


Cormack, Patrick
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McCrindle, Robert


Corrie, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McCusker, H.


Costain, A. P.
Hampson, Dr Keith
Macfarlane, Neil


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Hannam, John
MacGregor, John


Crawford, Douglas
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Critchley, Julian
Hastings, Stephen
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Crouch, David
Havers, Sir Michael
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Crowder, F. P.
Hawkins, Paul
Madel, David


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hayhoe, Barney
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)







Marten, Neil
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stanley, John


Males, Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Mather, Carol
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Maude, Angus
Raison, Timothy
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rathbone, Tim
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mawby, Ray
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Stokes, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mayhew, Patrick
Reid, George
Tapsell, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Mills, Peter
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tebbit, Norman


Miscampbell, Norman
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ridsdale, Julian
Thatcher, Rt Ron Margaret


Moate, Roger
Rifkind, Malcolm
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Molyneaux, James
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Thompson, George


Monro, Hector
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Thorne, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Montgomery, Fergus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Town send, Cyril D.


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoakes)
Trotter, Neville


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Ross, Shephen (Isle of Wight)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Morgan, Geraint
Ross, William (Londonderry)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Viggers, Peter


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Royle Sir Anthony
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Wakeham, John


Mudd, David
Sainsbury, Tim
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Neave, Airey
St. John-Stevas Norman
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Nelson, Anthony
Scott, Nicholas
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Neubert, Michael
Shaw Giles (Pudsey)
Wall, Patrick


Newton, Tony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walters, Dennis


Normanton, Tom
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Warren, Kenneth


Nott, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Watt, Hamish


Onslow, Cranley
Shepherd, Colin
Weaiherill, Bernard


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Shersby, Michael
Wells, John


Osborn, John
Silvester, Fred
welsh, Andrew


Page, John (Harrow West)
Sims, Roger
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Page, Richard (Workington)
Sinclair, Sir George
Wiggin, Jerry


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Winterton, Nicholas


Pardoe, John
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Pattie, Geoffrey
Speed, Keith
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Penhaligon, David
Spence, John
Younger, Hon George


Percival, Ian
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)



Peyton, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pink, R. Bonner
Sproat, Iain
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Order of 20th July 1976 be supplemented as follows—

Lords Amendments

1. The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to either Bill shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.

2. For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House does agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That

this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended,
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment,
(iii) put forthwith, with respect to each remaining Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment, and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
(c) so soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to such Lords Amendments.

Stage subsequent to first consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.

4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has


already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forward the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(a) put forthwith the Question on any Motion which is made by a Minister of the Crown on any item,
(b) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House both agree with the Lords in their Amendment or other Proposal,
(c) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) So soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Proposals, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Motion made by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Proposal.

Supplemental

5.—(1) In this paragraph 'the Proceedings means Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, or on any further Message from the Lords on either Bill.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown under Standing Order No. 57(1) (Lords amendments) that the Proceedings shall be considered forthwith.

(3) Paragraph 1 of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the Proceedings.

(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the Proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the question on such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(5) If the Proceedings are set down on any day as first Government Order of the Day paragraph 7 of the Order of 20th July 1976 (Private Business) shall apply as if that day were an allotted day.

(6) If the Proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

6.11 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric Varley): I beg to move,
That the Order of 20th July 1976 be supplemented as follows—

Lords Amendments

1. The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.

2. For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended.
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
(iii) put forthwith, with respect to each remaining Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment, and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
(c) so soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to such Lords Amendments.

Stage subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.

4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion Mr. Speaker shall


first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(a) put forthwith the Question on any Motion which is made by a Minister of the Crown on any item,
(b) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment or other Proposal,
(c) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) So soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Proposals. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Motion made by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Proposals.

Supplemental

5.—(1) In this paragraph 'the Proceedings' means Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown under Standing Order No. 57(1) (Lords amendments) that the Proceedings shall be considered forthwith.

(3) Paragraph 1 of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the Proceedings.

(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the Proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the question on such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(5) If the Proceedings are set down on any day as first Government Order of the Day paragraph 4 of the Order of 20th July 1976 (Private Business) shall apply as if that day were an allotted day.

(6) If the Proceedings were interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

I have heard it suggested in some quarters that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill has not been discussed adequately. The Bill was first introduced in April 1975. Although it was not proceeded with in that Session for lack of time, we treated it as a draft Bill as a basis of consultation. When it was re-introduced

nearly a year ago in November last year, it already contained a number of significant amendments to meet points of anxiety raised with us by the companies and others concerned.

The Bill had its Second Reading on 2nd December last year. It was considered in Standing Committee for 58 sittings—the greatest number of sittings on any Bill at any time. The Standing Committee proceedings ran from December to June. The total time spent in this House and including Standing Committee was 184 hours.

Since then, the Bill has been debated in another place for 72 hours, with more to come on Third Reading tomorrow. In this House, more than 800 amendments were tabled in Committee and on Report. In another place, some 450 amendments have been tabled at Committee and Report stages. The Government have accepted, or have tabled themselves to meet assurances made to the Opposition at the various stages of the Bill in both Houses, a very substantial number of amendments.

Right through the long Committee stage in this House the Government sought to place no restrictions on debate. When, faced with the obvious intention of the Opposition to delay the Bill on Report, we put a timetable on remaining stages, we allowed more time for it—three days—than the Opposition had earlier indicated they would have been willing to accept without the guillotine. On the basis of this record, it would be flying in the face of truth to suggest that the Bill has had inadequate debate or that the Government have refused to listen to reasonable points raised during the Bill's passage.

I want now to make clear to the House that the changes made in another place are not revising amendments but wrecking amendments. Let me give a few examples. First, the extent of flexibility for the corporations to develop-their commercial activities has been sharply reduced by amendments to Clauses 2 and 3. Secondly, the industrial democracy provisions have been changed in ways already rejected by the House of Commons; restrictive interpretations have been written in, and forms of consultation which are gravely at odds with the Government's general industrial relations legislation.

Thirdly, the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene in the public interest have been sharply reduced, yet his powers to interfere to protect private sector competitors have been increased far beyond the Conservatives' own fair trading legislation.

Fourthly, it has overturned the carefully worked out and well-precedented compensation formula which was fair to both shareholder and taxpayer, and instead has left it to an arbitration tribunal, instead of Parliament, to decide not only the interpretation but also the basis of the compensation arrangements.

Fifthly, shiprepairing and warship-building have been removed entirely from the scope of nationalisation, contrary to the decision of this House. Finally, an amendment has been passed which puts the aircraft industry vesting date back till after the next General Election—creating more delay than the Parliament Act itself, and amounting to a constitutional challenge of the first order. That is not revising legislation but, as some of us have suggested elsewhere, it is disembowelling it.

The Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill estimated that some 145,000 people would come into the public sector because of it. The amendments to this Bill, on aircraft, shiprepairing and war-shipbuilding, cut that figure to about 40,000. That is what another place has thought proper to do to a Bill passed by this House.

The motion before the House represents an important stage in the consideration of this Bill by the House. I must make absolutely clear to the House the very serious consequences if this Bill fails to receive the Royal Assent this Session.

If the timetable motion is rejected today and if the Bill subsequently fails, decision about the future of these industries will have passed from the Government into the hands of those who reject the motion. Without the support of public funding through public ownership, shipyards are in danger of going down like dominoes, and that includes important shipyards in areas of high unemployment in Scotland. By denying the means, those who vote against this motion will have willed the consequences.

In order to survive as a shipbuilding nation, we must have a coherent and unified national strategy. Only public ownership can provide this. Every day when I go into my office at the Department of Industry, I am liable to find on my desk details of a new crisis facing a shipyard, almost certainly in a part of the country where unemployment is already unacceptably too high. We cannot go on in this piecemeal way, considering each case in isolation as it comes up—as the Opposition did when they nationalised Govan, for example.

The shipbuilding crisis is world-wide, and we must have a national policy to deal with it. The Organising Committee has already done excellent work, but it cannot make real progress in tackling the problems of the industry until the Bill is on the statute book.

The position is stark, and I know how those who work in the industry will regard the frivolous way in which these facts are treated by the Opposition. I repeat, the position is stark. World orders for new ships in 1975 were less than half those placed in 1974. In the first six months of 1976, they ran at an even lower rate. More than 30 million gross tons of tanker capacity are laid up. We must have a national organisation to deal with this very serious situation.

The existence of a significant civil aircraft industry in this country also depends on this Bill. If the aircraft industry remains in private hands, it will be because the Opposition parties have voted that its future should be governed by the free play of the market forces. Without public ownership, I see little prospect of major new civil aircraft projects. So, if this motion falls this evening and if the Bill subsequently fails, it will be for the Conservative and Liberal Parties and all the other Opposition parties which vote against them to explain to the workers at Filton, Hatfield and Weybridge how the future of their factories is to be preserved. It will be for the Conservatives, Liberals and Welsh nationalists to explain to the workers at Hawker Siddeley, Broughton, how the future of their jobs is to be secured.

Then there is Scottish Aviation. Last week, 400 further redundancies were declared—a token of the future if this


firm does not come under public ownership, because the situation will deteriorate, as the management of Scottish Aviation recognises.

At Question Time this afternoon, my hon. Friend referred to the grave position for Scottish Aviation if this Bill does not go through. All Scottish Members should consider this situation seriously. It is vital for these industries that the Bill should reach the statute book this Session and the motion is an essential step in ensuring that. I urge the House to support it.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: One of the most intriguing features of the Secretary of State's speech was the contrast between the harrowing scene which he depicted as greeting him every morning at the Department with crisis after crisis on his desk and the lackadaisical process by which the Government have introduced this measure. What have they been doing for two and a half years? If it was, in their view, essential to nationalise these industries as the only way of saving them, why did they not introduce the Bill and try to push it through in their first one and a half years in office?
If they really thought that this Bill provided the only solution, one would have expected them to apply themselves to trying to get it through. Obviously, they did not regard it as being of such high priority that it should be given legislative time ahead of the other things to which they accorded greater priority.
The Government cannot have it both ways. They either believe in the reforming ability of a second Chamber, as they presumably intended in their Parliament Act 1949, or they do not. They cannot have a reforming second Chamber and then criticise it when it scrutinises legislation from this House.
If hon. Members opposite believe that another place should not have such powers, it is legitimate for them to seek to change that situation, but as long as the current constitutional position exists, another place is fully entitled to send back for further consideration any amendments it thinks correct.
One of the issues confronting the Government is the consequence of the dilatory way in which they have behaved over this legislation. On Second Reading, the Government had a majority of five; on Third Reading, a majority of three; and on this motion, on the basis of the current strengths of the parties, the best they could hope for is a majority of one.
Does anyone really believe that this gives the Government a case for nationalising two significant industries at a cost of £400 million to £500 million? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] It is because some hon. Members opposite believe that one is enough that they will find after the next by-election that they will not have even that majority. The Secretary of State repeated the argument which was deployed by the Minister of State during Question Time today and which we have heard many times before—that nationalisation will deal with the problem of unemployment in these industries. This argument is becoming shriller as time goes on. In the earlier stages of our consideration, the Secretary of State made clear that there would be redundancies in the industries and that the Government knew that both would have to be run down.
It is a delusion—to use a moderate word—to suggest that nationalisation offers any prospect of protecting jobs in these industries. The reality is that it prejudices jobs in these industries and in many others.
Let the Government explain how nationalisation will protect jobs in either industry. What difference will it make to Scottish Aviation that shares are simply changing ownership? Will the Government use taxpayers' money to subsidise losses in the company? Will they indulge in widespread blanket subsidies for the shipbuilding industry in order to maintain the present level of employment? If so, where will they get the funds? Has the Secretary of State not yet learned that the more funds the Government raise by borrowing or through taxation, the more they will perpetuate a climate of economic decline, the higher will be the rates of interest and the more jobs they will destroy in the rest of the manufacturing economy?
Of course, the Secretary of State knows that he cannot create jobs by buying support in the way he has suggested. His own Department played a significant part in the preparation of the Chequers strategy which made clear that the Government were going to deploy assets in productive and profitable sources. How can the right hon. Gentleman believe in that strategy and still hold out the prospect to thousands of workers that, if there are losses in their companies, the Government will continue to subsidise them? He cannot have it both ways.
The other argument pressed by the Secretary of State with great strength is that nationalisation is essential in order to protect jobs as a mechanistic device in itself. Yet the Government took into public ownership British Leyland, Alfred Herbert, Ferranti and Court Shipbuilders without any new legislation being passed. How can they suggest that they need to spend £400 million to £500 million to nationalise 42 companies, many of which are profitable and viable, when they were capable of nationalising the other companies to which I referred without any new legislation?

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that we took British Leyland into public ownership through the British Leyland Act, which his party voted against?

Mr. Heseltine: The Minister is wrong again. The rescue of British Leyland took place under the Industry Act when this House gave £50 million in temporary support. It was only when the Government adopted the Ryder strategy and committed hundreds of millions of pounds that we needed legislation. The rescue of British Leyland was carried out without legislation.
The Secretary of State urged us earlier to be reasonable and moderate and to support the Government's industrial strategy. He made an appeal, which I have heard him make on many occasions, that we need a new sense of national unity behind the private sector, free enterprise society in order to give it a chance to succeed. There is no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman strikes a chord which is widely felt in the country and by many of my hon. Friends who would agree with that

general thesis. But why is it always we who are expected to be reasonable and to support Socialist measures when hon. Members opposite will never be reasonable and support measures to help the private sector?
There is no compromise of any kind in this Bill. It is a doctrinaire measure to satisfy the power cravings of the Left in the Labour Party. Everybody knows it. The Bill does not even command the support of a substantial number of hon. Members opposite, but they are not prepared to risk internal dangers to their party by putting the national interest above party interest. That is why they are gathered here to try to steamroller this legislation through at a late hour in the hope of advancing the frontiers of Socialism irrespective of the interests of this nation.

Mr. Ron Thomas: As the Member for a constituency in Bristol, a city with 25,000 aircraft workers, I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments in this debate. I served on the Committee which considered this Bill, and in view of the hours spent there, at later stages in this House and at the end of the corridor, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that more than enough time has been devoted to the Bill.
In Committee, the Opposition were more concerned with how much compensation they could get for private shareholders than with the jobs of those in the industry, industrial democracy or the future of the industry.
The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) suggested that the House of Lords was a scrutinising and revising Chamber. But can he really suggest that in the light of some of the amendments that were considered and passed there? Is it a form of scrutiny to accept an amendment proposed in the House of Lords which would have the effect of deleting the aircraft industry from this measure? Is it a form of scrutiny to delete ship-repairing companies from the Bill? Is it a form of scrutiny to delete warship builders from the Bill? On what basis? It is because they are profitable ventures. The Opposition tell us that public ownership is all right provided that we take into public ownership


bankrupt industries. We are fed up with that kind of approach.
There is an amendment to leave out Scottish Aviation and another amendment to the effect that the vesting date of the British Aerospace Corporation should be postponed until after the next General Election.
Anyone who goes through the House of Lords Hansard will see that time and again their Lordships have reiterated the speeches and arguments of the Opposition here. Again, they defended the sweetheart associations. They criticised our approach to industrial democracy. They want to put these industries into a straitjacket. We argue that the technological fall-out and skills in industries such as the aircraft industry should be allowed to diversify and to develop. Reading the debates in the House of Lords, it becomes clear time and again that that place is not a revisionary Chamber or the watchdog of the constitution but the poodle of the Opposition. It is high time, in the judgment of myself and many of my hon. Friends that that poodle was quietly put to sleep.
I remind my right hon. Friend, although he does not need reminding, that I have been inundated with letters and telegrams expressing the anxiety of aircraft workers who want the aircraft industry brought into public ownership as quickly as possible. The Government have the support of aircraft workers.
The hon. Member for Henley and some of his colleagues have received telegrams from Tory, Liberal and Labour shop stewards in the aircraft industry condemning them for the way they have held up this important legislation and the effect that this could have on jobs.

Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Thomas: No. The public ownership of these industries—

Mr. Pattie: On the hon. Gentleman's point regarding the support of workers in the aircraft industry, will he tell me how much support there is at BAC Warton? Is he aware of a petition signed by several thousand employees at Warton saying that they do not want nationalisation?

Mr. Thomas: BAC Filton—

Mr. Pattie: BAC Warton.

Mr. Thomas: The Leader of the Opposition has had telegrams from Conservative aircraft workers, from the BAC shop stewards' committee and the whole mass of BAC workers at Filton demanding to know why the Opposition have continued to delay the Bill purely on the basis of political dogma, ignoring the impact that it will have on jobs and the future of the industry.
Public ownership of the aircraft, shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries was spelt out in our February and October 1974 election manifestos. They are issues on which we fought the February and October 1974 General Elections. As far as I am concerned, these are important measures to bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of wealth and power in favour of working people and their families. These measures have overwhelming support. I am sure that the House will pass the motion tonight.

6.34 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The guillotine procedure has become part of our accepted parliamentary practice, but it is important that what is intended as an aid to the conduct of parliamentary business should not degenerate into an abuse of power and an obstacle to free discussion.
If abuse is to be prevented, certain criteria must be respected. There must be a reasonable relationship between the timetable suggested and the amount of scrutiny given to a Bill. In particular, the timetable should seek to avoid creating a situation in which large parts of a Bill have no discussion in either House at any stage. There must also be a reasonable relationship with the importance of the Bill to the nation.
When dealing with Lords amendments, there should be a reasonable relationship between the timetable suggested and the amount of time given by the other place to the evolution and discussion of its amendments. The attitude of this House to amendments proposed in another place must also, in accordance with our constitutional principle, have regard to the evidence of the degree of public support outside Parliament for the attitude of the


other place. All these criteria have failed to be respected in this timetable motion.
Of the 57 clauses of the Bill, 46 have not been discussed in this House. The amendments proposed in the other place are the product of long, serious and late discussion.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not get paid much for this brief.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Regarding public support, I suggest—not that I expect the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) to understand it—si monumentum requiris, circumspice. I shall translate for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) to shout across to my right hon. and learned Friend that he "will not get paid much for this brief"?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The throwing of charges is always undesirable, and I deprecate it. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who has been a Member as long as I have, knows how to deal with an interruption of that kind.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: If you please, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Luton, West must not draw from his own unhappy professional experience. I was about to translate for his benefit: "If you want to see the Government's tombstone, look at Workington and Walsall."
I should like to make one other specific point in addition to the general point which I have made. It appears, this time in the ship-repairing provisions of the Bill, that there is an element of hybridity. The Government have been challenged in the other place on the validity of their list of companies and on their compliance with the statutory criteria for inclusion set out in Part II of Schedule 2.
A series of questions has been put by Viscount Colville of Culross, himself an eminent lawyer, and those questions have been purported to be answered by the Lord Privy Seal seeking to justify the Government's position. Those answers have been submitted to an eminent

Queen's Counsel, and his opinion has been—

Mr. William Small: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is one allowed to quote anyone other than a Minister in the other place?

Mr. Speaker: A direct quotation is possible only if one is referring to the speech of a Minister, unless it is a speech by a Member of the other House in another Session of Parliament.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am well aware of these parliamentary conventions. I have made no direct quotation. I do not intend to make a direct quotation from anything said in the other House. I propose to quote—this is certainly in order—the opinion of an eminent Queen's Counsel on this matter. His opinion is that certain companies referred to in the answer given by the Lord Privy Seal, and not now listed in the Bill, call for inclusion on a correct interpretation of criteria. In other words, it is another clear case of hybridity.
The eminent Queen's Counsel goes on to say:
As the Bill is now drawn, the Government's expressed views about its interpretation, and application to matters contained in the Lord Privy Seal's answer, are unsound and wrong.
That means that the other place has uncovered another case of hybridity, just as in other provisions my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) did here.
The relevance to this motion is that Amendments Nos. 217 and 219 made in the other place and designed to remove ship-repairing companies come at the end of the Bill and, therefore, are unlikely to be debated during a six-hour guillotine debate. In that case, they will be put to the vote forthwith. If the Government carry a motion to disagree, the other place may either restore those provisions or proceed in regard to the hybridity. If it restores them, and if the Government wish to maintain their position, they must invoke the provisions of the Parliament Act.
If the other place passes a motion to refer the Bill, either as a whole or the ship-repairing provisions, to the examiners, that examination would in all probability not be resolved by the 24th


of this month. Therefore, the Bill would either fall or prorogation would be postponed. Clearly, if the examination shows hybridity, as I submit it probably would, the consequent procedures must bring one or other of those results.
It is clear from our experience in the summer in this House and from the experience in the other place this month that the Government's understanding on the issue of hybridity is tenuous indeed and is likely to be improved only after a full and proper opportunity for examination in debate such as is clearly not afforded by this timetable.
This is a bad motion and a bad timetable, for reasons both general and specific. It derives from a Bill injurious in intent, defective in drafting, imperfectly understood by its sponsors and inadequately discussed by Parliament. As such, the motion should be rejected and condemned.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I have the privilege at the moment, Mr. Speaker, of reading and reviewing a book written by your predecessor in the Chair which is due to be published on Wednesday. In this book he says that one of the depressing experiences of anybody in the Chair is listening to debates on guillotine motions because, he says, one could shut one's eyes and hear the same speeches made by the other side on the appropriate occasion. He refers to accusations of dictatorship and Fascism made by those opposed to the motion, while those who argue in favour of the guillotine say that the Bill has been discussed endlessly and must go through.
We cannot get away from the fact that the attitude to a guillotine motion is totally intertwined with people's attitude not so much to the powers of the House or to the position of the other Chamber but to the merits of the measure. I know that many of my hon. Friends have signed a motion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in which they say that they will not support a guillotine motion on a devolution measure because they dislike that measure and that that would be a way of killing it even if they were not prepared to vote against the principle of

the measure. We know the Opposition's attitude and the power struggle that is going on in this House.
I do not think it is any secret that many hon. Members are unhappy about some of the measures that are being forced through tonight. If I had a free vote, I should vote 100 per cent. for the pay beds Bill, completely for the Education Bill and on the whole for the Rent (Agriculture) Bill—[Interruption]. I have a vote, and so has the hon. Gentleman, and I voted with reluctance for the Dock Work Regulation Bill.
We know the score. We know the way party programmes are produced. Those on the Government side have voted for these Bills from First Reading to Third Reading. It is odd to expect anyone who has done that to change his vote now, though we know that both parties take their programmes as package deals. Hon. Members know all the items to which they are subscribing when they stand for election. The Dock Work Regulation Bill is one of these items. Individual Members may have grave doubts about certain measures, but we take them on that understanding.
What I find depressing and worrying is that the party lines that were drawn up in 1974 are not relaxing at all with the economic crisis. Indeed, they are hardening—[Interruption]. I am trying, in all seriousness, to make an argument. The argument is that, although we fought the last General Election on certain matters, there are certain things that hon. Members on both sides of the House do not support 1,000 per cent.
There is now a new situation. There is the national humiliation that we have suffered during the last three months. There is the evidence that policies, for which I am blaming no one, which we as a nation have pursued over a decade of economic decline, are now coming home to roost. This is one reason why I shall support getting these measures out of the way. I do not think that it benefits us to fight over these issues any more. I want to see us applying ourselves to the economic problems facing the country.
I put it to the Opposition and to my Front Bench that one of the most depressing things from the country's point of view is that this House has been here since 11th October, yet we have had only one day's debate on the crucial


economic issues facing us. We have talked about matters left over from the past which are not relevant now. This is the fault of both sides of the House, and the shouts of Tory Members have indicated that they are interested not so much in the country's point of view but in that of their party.

Mr. John Gorst: I compliment the hon. Gentleman on the courage with which he is speaking, but surely, if he is to be consistent in his argument, he must concede that the expenditure involved in this measure is wrong at the present time, as he has clearly indicated.

Mr. Mackintosh: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I regret that the consistency argument catches those of us who have supported these measures as part of a party programme and requires that we continue to support them. If we had laid down markers six months or nine months ago, that might have been different, but I ask Conservative Members to consider whether they are helping if they proceed with this kind of battle rather than apply themselves to the current problems facing this country.
The issue will come to a crisis when we have the package of measures that the IMF will demand of this House and of the Government. When they come before us, will we tackle them in a manner that means the two sides facing each other deadlocked? The speech of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) at the Conservative Party Conference did nothing to help towards a cross-party approach to our economic problems. If that attitude persists, the two sides will face each other and only one thing will be able to resolve it, and that will be a series of by-elections. It will be a disaster if the public have to enforce some sense upon this House.
If the recent by-election results are taken to be a simple desire on the part of the public for the continuation of the two-party conflict and the substitution of one Government for another, I can only say that Conservative Members have misread the mood of the country. They have misread it deeply, and the more they press their point in this implacable way the more they will unite the forces on this side of the House and the tougher the two battle lines will become. That

will mean no change of Government for at least 18 months or two years, because the Government can continue if they hold on.
I hope that the kind of silly counterattacks that we have seen tonight will desist after 24th November and that both sides will look at the package required by the IMF and the economic problems facing us and try to meet them in a manner that will restore some confidence to this country. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to recognise that the kind of battle that they are fighting tonight does this country no good.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: As we discuss this timetable motion, as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) rightly said, this country faces the worst economic crisis since 1929. But he is wrong in supporting this measure, because it will make that crisis worse. Labour Members must understand the situation. Today the pound slipped by another 1½c. The stock market is down by another 17 points, affecting the pension funds of workers represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The Labour Party has to realise that if the Government continue to thrust nationalisation down the throats of millions of voters who are absolutely against it, that will not assist them to meet the requirements of the International Monetary Fund or of our foreign creditors. If the Government would listen to the views of many of their supporters in another place and drop or postpone this legislation, that would be the biggest single factor in assisting the pound and giving confidence to international financiers.
I believe that the conditions that the IMF will demand of this Government will be worse because of these nationalisation measures. If the Government would drop this measure, the requirements of the IMF would be eased. Even at this late hour, surely some semblance of common sense could be brought to our affairs by the Prime Minister. Can he not see that: the nation would benefit if nationalisation were not pursued now? I do not ask him to give up his dogma but to put Socialist dogma, for once, second to the needs of the country.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I was a member of the Committee which debated this Bill for many long hours. Opportunity after opportunity was given to the Opposition to raise many of the points which have now been discussed in the House of Lords. Some of the issues were raised in Committee. Many others, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) pointed out, were not raised in Committee because the Opposition were more concerned with compensation.
We all agree that the national interest comes first. We must all have the broadest measure of consent in what we are seeking to achieve in righting our country's economic wrongs. It would be as wrong for us, as for the Conservative Party to lend our support to measures which are not in the national interest and not capable of righting our nation's economy.
What people outside do not realise is that when we debate these measures there is disagreement not about the diagnosis but about the remedy for our country's illness. If we were to follow the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Tiverton—

Mr. Peter Emery: Honiton.

Mr. McNamara: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. There are a lot of ship-workers in that part of the country. If we followed the hon. Member's argument, we would find that shipbuilding company after shipbuilding company would go bankrupt. What would happen to the aircraft industry if it did not have public investment? Again, there would be unemployment and more unemployment.
If we want to maintain these two proud industries, if we are to organise and have the regeneration and re-investment that we need to keep our proud shipbuilding industry in the face of difficult international competition, if we are to have a viable aircraft industry, it is essential that this Bill goes through. The workers in my constituency who are involved in the shipbuilding and aircraft industries have only one regret—that not every part of the earlier Bill is to be carried into effect and that we have not nationalised Drypool as we should have done in the first place.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: It was the sophists of the French Revolution who said simply "if our second chamber disagrees with the first chamber, it is mischievous. If it does not disagree it is superfluous." That is the attitude adopted now by Labour Members but I remind the Father of the House the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and others who may have a clear recollection of the position between 1947 and 1949 that it was not the attitude adopted then. The other place moved 1,222 amendments to 10 major Socialist Bills during that time and of those only 57, or fewer than 5 per cent., were rejected by this House. That took place during a period which was completely revisionary and sensible.
Yet, in the face of that, it will be remembered that there was a Parliament Act in 1949. That was introduced on three occasions. There was a Second Reading in November 1947, another in January 1948 and the final occasion was in 1949 when the Parliament Act received the Royal Assent.
The relevance of this is that last week the Race Relations Bill returned from consideration in the other place and every single amendment which had been passed by the Lords was automatically reversed here. On this measure we face not a matter of debate but a steamroller machine in which all the amendments which have been carefully considered in another place will be reversed—

Mr. John Mendelson: Wrecking amendments.

Mr. Rees-Davies: They are not wrecking amendments. Many of the amendments we have been discussing on the other Bills are far from being anything of the kind. If only 5 per cent. was reversed during 1947 and 1949, what chance have we here?
The truth is that the Government and their supporters have turned the work of this House into a charade. It is no longer possible for another place to carry out its work properly. It has neither the time nor the opportunity. When it spends a great many hours doing its work properly, it finds that every one of its amendments is thrust aside willy-nilly, even if it has the support of the Liberal Party and Cross-benchers.
That makes this debate different from a normal guillotine debate. This is because the Government are concerned, not so much with the quantum of discussion as with the content. There is to be little or no opportunity either to discuss the Lords amendments properly or to see that those sensible and reasonable revisionary amendments become law. That is why Labour Members are running themselves into a situation which they appear to like and are calling for the total abolition of another place.
I remind Labour Members that we on this side, as well as many Labour Members, would like to see a popularly elected second Chamber. If they wish to see the total abolition of the Lords—which was not their general view in 1949 and is not the view of many today—they are going the right way about it. The situation today shows the plainest intention on the part of the Government of setting at naught the whole purpose of the Parliament Act.
I finish with the words of the Lord Chancellor in 1949 when he said that it was perfectly reasonable that the Government should leave the legislation and seek to reverse the Act later so that there could be a second occasion upon which there would be time carefully to consider public opinion. The Government are flying in the face of public opinion today. If they went to the country on whether they or the Lords were right, they would soon find that their place would be, as it is today, at the bottom of the poll.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Tom King: The Government have based their case on the need for little time to discuss the amendments and the fact that they were mainly the work of irresponsible Conservative peers in another place. It is interesting to find that among the Lords amendments which we shall be asked to discuss in the space of six hours are no fewer than 20 Government amendments. It is significant that we shall have to discuss no fewer than 150 Government amendments which are likely to come back to this House, yet we shall have very little opportunity for discussion.
We have been told of the so-called activities of Conservative peers. But anyone who studied the progress of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill will know of the attitude of a consider-

able number of Labour peers in another place, not least Lord Shinwell and his extremely disparaging views in respect of this measure. It is also significant that we are being asked to approve a motion when the Third Reading of the Bill has not yet happened in another place. That brings into question the whole constitutional principle of how we can possibly give proper consideration to the motion, because the House of Lords still has the opportunity on Third Reading to table further amendments under its procedures.
What will have concerned my hon. Friends about the Secretary of State's speech was the quite disgraceful form of blackmail which he introduced—the imputation that anyone who votes against this measure or a timetable motion is wishing to see unemployment in specific areas. That was the politics of the gutter, and I make no apology for saying that. Any Minister who has any sense of responsibility in the Department of Industry knows perfectly well that aids are available to that Department, under the Industry Acts of 1972 and 1975 and the Civil Aviation Act of 1949, which it can use to take action in these areas.
The passing of the Bill may make it more difficult to help those specific cases because it will apply more generally and widely across the whole range of industry, including acquisition of the shares of a number of profitable companies which at present are in no need of assistance. The Bill will diminish the aid which may be given. I would say to those areas where unemployment has been threatened, both by the Secretary of State and by the Minister of State at Question Time, that that argument is totally fallacious. It is the most base argument that could have been adduced.
It is interesting that the Secretary of State gave absolutely no justification, and made no attempt to do so, for the nationalisation of ship-repairing. Any hon. Member who was present at Question Time will have noted the total contradiction in what the Minister of State said. In one of his usual unctuous approches to the nationalist parties, he sought to say that there would be plenty of time for debating the issue of ship-repairing. Hon. Members will have noticed, however, that, in response to further complaints that there was not sufficient time


for debating this important issue, the Minister said that there was no time whatever for debating any of these issues but that because they had all been more than fully discussed by the House it was perfectly proper if the whole time were taken up by voting on the amendments which came to us.
The Minister of State is not all that interested in any discussion on the Lords amendments. He could not care less what views might be held in the Lords, whether by Conservative peers, Cross-Bench peers, Liberal peers or Labour peers. As far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned, he wants to roll out what he thinks is his majority and legislate. That is not sufficient for us. We regard this guillotine motion as a travesty of the proper procedures which should follow proper consideration of Lords amendments. I appeal to all hon. Members in this House who care about proper consideration of these matters to vote against the motion.

7.5 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): This measure so far, excluding the timetable motion, has been considered for 256 hours. That is a lot of consideration. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) dragged in the tired issue of hybridity as well as the opinion of a person whom he quoted as an eminent Queen's Counsel to verify his views. The eminent Queen's Counsel who has offered his opinion is a former President of the Oxford University Conservative Association and a member of the Executive Committee of Conservative Lawyers. That is the impartiality of the opinion which tells us that the Bill is hybrid.
Of course, the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) was increasingly virulent in his final remarks because he knew that the issue which he is trying to deflect us from considering is the issue of jobs in aircraft and shipbuilding. The hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) intervened and spoke about jobs. There would now be 1,000 of his constituents out of work were it not for the money we forced on the British Aircraft Corporation in July in order to underwrite five more BAC111s. The hon.
Gentleman is saying that we can rescue with public money in one way but that we must not rescue with public money in a way which the electorate has endorsed.
We are saying to Opposition Members that there will be no new civil aircraft projects of any major size in this country unless the Bill goes through. I have discussed this with the French, the Germans and the Americans. They are waiting for the Bill to go through so that they can get some decisions. They have asked me "When will this Bill go through?" when I discussed aircraft collaboration with them.
We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen. North (Mr. Hughes) of the dangers awaiting Scottish Aviation if the Bill does not go through. That company is teetering on the edge of destruction, and only this Bill can save it. The jobs at Hawker Siddeley in North Wales are to a large extent dependent on new projects, and new projects depend on this Bill. There are shipyards in England and Scotland which are in danger and which will require an organised approach to make sure that there is any hope of rescuing them.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that about 30 per cent. of the workers in Scottish shipbuilding will be made redundant if the Bill goes through? There is a report from the Organisation Committee seeking to close the Scottish shipyards

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) raised that issue at Question Time and I told her that those rumours were absolutely without foundation and that we have had no recommendation at all from the Organising Committee. I would tell the hon. Gentleman that, if he votes against the motion on that basis and the Bill falls, he and his hon. Friends will be responsible for tens of thousands of redundancies in the shipbuilding industry in Scotland.

Mr. Heseltine: Mr. Heseltine rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It looks as though the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Kaufman: I advise hon. Gentlemen to take into account that they are voting about jobs. Let them take account of what will happen if they win. They are hoping to be let off the hook by


the Government majority. I would tell them here and now that they will not be let off the hook if they vote, because up and down England, Scotland and Wales we will broadcast how hon. Gentlemen voted on this issue of jobs on which the Bill is based.
I therefore call upon my hon. Friends to vote for the motion and to vote to save the jobs of aircraft workers in England, Scotland and Wales, to save the jobs of shipbuilding workers in England and Scotland, and to save the jobs of ship-repair workers in England, Scotland and Wales. We must carry this motion. We must save these jobs.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the Government's own guillotine has fallen on the Minister, he cannot go on speaking, can he?

Mr. Speaker: It has not fallen yet. Has the Minister finished?

Mr. Kaufman: I am perfectly ready to go on talking until the guillotine falls about how the Government wish to save the jobs of shipbuilding and aircraft workers.

Hon. Members: Time is up.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is at 7.11 that I shall put the Question.

Mr. Kaufman: Hon. Members will have to answer. [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, who talked so much about hybridity, represents an area where there are aircraft workers. He represents the area—

It being One hour after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [20th July], to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them: —

The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 310.

Division No. 376.]
AYES
[7.11 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Concannon, J. D.
Flannery, Martin


Allaun, Frank
Conlan, Bernard
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)


Anderson, Donald
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Archer, Peter
Corbett, Robin
Fool, Rt Hon Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Cowans, Harry
Ford, Ben


Ashley, Jack
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Forrester, John


Ashton, Joe
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Crawshaw, Richard
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Atkinson, Norman
Cronin, John
Freeson, Reginald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Gacrett, John (Norwich S)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cryer, Bob
George, Bruce


Bates, Alt
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Gilbert, Dr John


Bean, R. E.
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Ginsburg, David


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dalyell, Tarn
Golding, John


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Davidson, Arthur
Gould, Bryan


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Gourlay, Harry


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Derail (Llanelll)
Graham, Ted


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Boardman, H.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Deakins, Eric
Grocott, Bruce


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hardy, Peter


Bradley, Tom
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dempsey, James
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Doig, Peter
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dormand, J. D.
Hatton, Frank


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hayman, Mrs. Helene


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Heffer, Eric S.


Buchan, Norman
Dunn, James A.
Hooley, Frank


Buchanan, Richard
Dunnett, Jack
Horam, John


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Eadie, Alex
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Edge, Geoff
Huckfield, Les


Campbell, Ian
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Canavan, Dennis
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Cant, R. B.
Ellis. Tom (Wrexham)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Carmichael, Neil
English, Michael
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Carter, Ray
Ennals, David
Hunter, Adam


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Cartwright, John
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Evans, John (Newton)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Clemitson, Ivor
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Faulds, Andrew
Janner, Greville


Cohen, Stanley
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Coleman, Donald
Fitch. Alan (Wigan)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)




Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Silverman, Julius


John, Brynmor
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Skinner, Dennis


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Molloy, William
Small, William


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Moonman, Eric
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Snape, Peter


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spriggs, Leslie


Judd, Frank
Moyle, Roland
Stallard, A. W.


Kaufman, Gerald
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Kelley, Richard
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Stoddart, David


Kerr, Russell
Newens, Stanley
Stott, Roger


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Noble, Mike
Strang, Gavin


Kinnock, Neil
Oakes, Gordon
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Lambie, David
Ogden, Eric
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lamborn, Harry
O'Halloran, Michael
Swain, Thomas


Lamond, James
Orbach, Maurice
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Leadbitter, Ted
Ovenden, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Lee, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Padley, Walter
Thome, Stan (Preston South)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Palmer, Arthur
Tierney, Sydney


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Park, George
Tinn, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parker, John
Tomlinson, John


Lipton, Marcus
Parry, Robert
Tomney, Frank


Litterick, Tom
Pavitt, Laurie
Torney, Tom


Lomas, Kenneth
Pendry, Turn
Urwin, T. W.


Loyden, Eddle
Perry, Ernest
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Luard, Evan
Phipps, Dr Colin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Walden, Brian (B'ham. L dyw'd)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Prescott, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


McCartney, Hugh
Price, William (Rugby)
Ward, Michael


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Radice, Giles
Watkins, David


McElhone, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Watkinson, John


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Richardson, Miss Jo
Weetch, Ken


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Weitzman, David


MacKenzie, Gregor
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wellbeloved, James


Mackintosh, John P.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Maclennan, Robert
Robinson, Geoffrey
White, James (Pollok)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Whitehead, Phillip


McNamara, Kevin
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Whitlock, William


Madden, Max
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Magee, Bryan
Rooker, J. W.
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Roper, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Mahon, Simon
Rose, Paul B.
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Marks, Kenneth
Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Marquand, David
Ryman, John
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Sandelson, Neville
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Marshall. Jim (Leicester S)
Sedgemore, Brian
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Selby, Harry
Woodall, Alec


Maynard, Miss Joan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Woof, Robert


Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Young, David (Bolton E)


Mendelson, John
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)



Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Sillars, James
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Bradford, Rev Robert
Cope, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Braine, Sir Bernard
Cordle, John H.


Alison, Michael
Brittan, Leon
Cormack, Patrick


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Corrie, John


Arnold, Tom
Brotherton, Michael
Costain, A. P.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)


Awdry, Daniel
Bryan, Sir Paul
Crawford, Douglas


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Critchley, Julian


Baker, Kenneth
Buck, Antony
Crouch, David


Banks, Robert
Budgen, Nick
Crowder, F. P.


Beith, A. J.
Bulmer, Esmond
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)


Bell, Ronald
Burden, F. A.
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Carlisle, Mark
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Benyon, W.
Carson, John
Drayson, Burnaby


Berry, Hon Anthony
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bitten, John
Channon, Paul
Dunlop, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Churchill, W. S.
Durant, Tony


Blaker, Peter
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Dykes, Hugh


Body, Richard
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Bottomley, Peter
Clegg, Waller
Elliott, Sir William


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Cockcroft, John
Emery, Peter


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)







Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Kirk, Sir Peter
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Eyre, Reginald
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knight, Mrs Jill
Ridsdale, Julian


Fairgrieve, Russell
Knox, David
Rifkiind, Malcolm


Farr, John
Lamont, Norman
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Fell, Anthony
Lane, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lawrence, Ivan
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lawson, Nigel
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Forman, Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rosl, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Lloyd, Ian
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fox, Marcus
Loveridge, John
Sainsbury, Tim


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Luce, Richard
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Freud, Clement
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Scott, Nicholas


Fry, Peter
MacCormick, Iain
Scott-Hopkins, James


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
McCrindle, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McCusker, H.
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylda)
Macfarlane, Nell
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
MacGregor, John
Shepherd, Colin


Gilmour, sir John (East Fife)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Shersby, Michael


Glyn, Dr Alan
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Silvester, Fred


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sims, Roger


Goodhart, Philip
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sinclair, Sir George


Goodhew Victor
Marten Neil
Skeet, T. H. H.


Goodlad, Alastair
Mates Michael
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Gorst, John
Mather, Carol
smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Maude, Angus
Speed, Keith


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Maulding, Rt Hon Reginald
Spence, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mawby, Ray
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Gray, Hamish
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Grieve, Percy
Mayhew, Patrick
Sproat, Iain


Griffiths, Eldon
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stanley, John


Grist, Ian
Mills, Peter
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Grylls, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Steen, Anthony (Wavetree)


Hall, Sir John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moate, Roger
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Molyneaux, James
Stokes, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Hector
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hannam, John
Montgomery, Fergus
Tapsell, Peter


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Hastings, Stephen
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Havers, Sir Michael
Morgan, Geraint
Tebbit Norman


Hawkins, Paul
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hayhoe, Barney
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thomas Dafydd (Merioneth)


Henderson, Douglas
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)




Thompson, George


Heseltine, Michael
Mudd, David
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Hicks, Robert
Neave, Airey
Townsend, Cyril D.


Higgins, Terence L.
Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Hodgson, Robin
Neubert, Michael
Tugendhat, Christopher


Holland, Philip
Newton, Tony
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hooson, Emlyn
Normanton, Tom
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hordern, Peter
Nott, John
Viggers, Peter


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Onslow, Cranley
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Wakeham, John


Howell Ralph (North Norfolk)
Osborn, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Page, Richard (Workington)
Wall, Patrick


Hurd, Douglas
Paisley, Rev Ian
Walters, Dennis


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pardoe, John
Warren, Kenneth


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Watt, Hamish


James, David
Penhaligon, David
Weatherill, Bernard


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Percival, Ian
Wells, John


Jessel, Toby
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Welsh, Andrew


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pink, R. Bonner
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Wiggin, Jerry


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wigley, Dafydd


Jopling, Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Winterton, Nicholas


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Raison, Timothy
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rathbone, Tim
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Kershaw, Anthony
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Younger, Hon George


Kilfedder, James
Rees-Davies, W. R.



Kimball, Marcus
Reid, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That the Order of 20th July 1976 be supplemented as follows—

Lords Amendments

1. The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.

2. For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended.
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
(iii) put forthwith, with respect to each remaining Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment, and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;
(c) so soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to such Lords Amendments.

Stage subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.

4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(a) put forthwith the Question on any Motion which is made by a Minister of the Crown on any item,
(b) In the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment or other Proposal,
(c) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) So soon as the House shall have agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Proposals, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Motion made by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the proposals.

Supplemental

5.—(1) In this paragraph 'the Proceedings' means Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, or on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown under Standing Order No. 57(1) (Lords amendments) that the Proceedings shall be considered forthwith.

(3) Paragraph 1 of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the Proceedings.

(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the Proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the question  such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(5) If the Proceedings are set down on any day as first Government Order of the Day paragraph 4 of the Order of 20th July 1976 (Private Business) shall apply as if that day were an allotted day.

(6) If the Proceedings were interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

HIGHWAY CODE

7.27 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Paper on A Proposed New Highway Code.

[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that the Minister should wait for a moment.

Mr. Horam: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for kindly allowing a few minutes for the House to recover its breath after those momentous events.
The present version of the Highway Code was published in February 1969. Since then changes in the law and in traffic and road conditions have made it out of date in several important respects and many minor ones too. It badly needs updating. Since 1969 the total volume of traffic on our road system has increased by more than one-fifth, and the volume on motorways has more than doubled. Many measures have been introduced to improve the flow and safety of traffic, such as zigzag markings at zebra crossings, mini-roundabouts and a big increase in the number of pelican crossings.
Power to revise the Highway Code, under Section 37 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, rests with the Secretary of State, and any revision is subject to approval by both Houses. When the present version was laid before the House in December 1968 hon. Members were understandably critical that they had not had an opportunity to debate it before it was laid before them.
To ensure that hon. Members could consider the present proposed revision the Government published in January 1975 the Green Paper "A proposed new Highway Code", which was also available to anyone with an interest in the subject. As an additional help to hon. Members we have prepared a "Paper for Parliamentary debate", a white-covered document—not a White Paper—for the debate; it is available in the Library and sets out on the left-hand pages the text of the Green Paper draft and side by side on the right-hand pages a further revised version prepared in the light of the comments received on the Green Paper. We are debating tonight the white-covered

paper which contains the original Green Paper proposals on the left and the revised proposals on the right. The next stage in this long gestation period will be to prepare the final text in the light of hon. Members' comments this evening and comments in another place and to lay that text before both Houses for approval.
I hope that the present position is clear, and that what we are debating tonight is also clear. In referring to rule numbers in this debate, I shall be referring to those on the right hand side of the white-covered paper which is the most up-to-date revised document.
I wish to take the opportunity of thanking all who commented on the Green Paper, including many interested organisations, and Members who made comments themselves or passed on comments from their constituents. This is the first time that a proposed revision has been so widely circulated for comment, and the response has shown that it has been well worth while. Some of the suggested additions or amendments have been accepted, and included in the draft before the House; others have not. I welcome this opportunity of hearing Members' views.
The Highway Code is a familiar document to most people, at least in the sense that we remember that we once mugged it up—or some of us did—before nervously presenting ourselves for our first driving test. Having disposed of that hurdle, we probably put it in a bottom drawer where it rests to this day—or at least it remained until it was thrown out some years ago. In a sense it is like a set book at school: we learned it because we had to do so to pass an examination. I wish to suggest that it is worth reading again, and that it will be more so in its new revised form.
This brings me to an important point. The Highway Code is not just for learner drivers, or for children taking the cycling proficiency test. It is a digest of the rules of the road, the rules of good conduct, for road users of all ages and degrees of experience: pedestrians, cyclists, motor cyclists, drivers, and people riding on horses or leading animals. It sets out the broad framework designed to regulate the flow of traffic of all types, so that it can move at


reasonable speed with the minimum of confusion and the maximum of safety. The code does not attempt to deal with every situation, but to be adequate for modern traffic conditions.
The rules are sometimes complex, and there are many of them, but the precepts behind them are simple and the intention is that the code be drafted in straightforward language which is readily understood.
I shall turn shortly to the main changes which have been proposed since the present version of the code was published, but before that there are one or two general points. The code is not a statutory one in the sense that failure to comply with its provisions is a criminal offence, but non-compliance can be cited in legal proceedings as
tending to establish or to negative
any liability in question in those proceedings.
Two things in particular flow from this—namely, that the code ought to be kept up to date, and that it should be revised at reasonably frequent intervals. The fact that the present code has remained unchanged since 1969 is a matter for concern.
The second point is that the code can only embody practices which have been developed and tested to the point where they are accepted as good practice. The Highway Code is not the place to introduce new driving techniques, new road markings or the results of the latest experiment at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. All these must be widely tested before they may find a place in the code. This is absolutely right and I hope that Members will recognise a familiar ring to the provisions of the code to which I shall now turn. Members will not want me to comment on all the detailed changes from the present code, so I shall concentrate on the main changes and those points in the draft Green Paper that drew most comment.
The first part of the code contains advice for pedestrians. This is not new to this revised version, but it needs to be more widely understood that the Highway Code is for pedestrians just as much as for any other class of road user. In recent years more emphasis has been

given to the provision of facilities for pedestrians, and it is worthy of note that this has been accompanied by a steady drop in the number of pedestrian casualties—down from 84,000 in 1972 to 69,300 last year. This is an encouraging trend, but it must not lead to complacency.
The Green Cross Code—Rules 7 and 8—which was introduced in 1971 as a replacement for kerb drill is now included in the present code. It has been given a great deal of publicity in its own right, and, although many people commented on points of detail, there has been virtually complete acceptance of the Green Cross Code as the safest way to cross the road. It is for use by all pedestrians, but has been devised with children especially in mind, and it is intended that the wording of this part of the code be understandable to young children. The aim of the Green Cross Code was to give pedestrians, particularly children, enough information and advice in a form that they can understand, without encouraging the ritualistic approach—"Look right, look left, look right"—of the old kerb drill. The Department was greatly helped in devising the new wording by a committee set up by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and by research carried out by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory to discover how children react to various traffic situations and the form of words they would understand and translate into safe actions.
There is still one point that worries me and that is the use of the word "refuge" instead of "island". Possibly I am a little old-fashioned, but when I remember learning these things as a child they were traffic "islands" rather than "refuges". However, the word "refuge" appears in the revised version. This is something on which hon. Members may care to comment.
The emphasis in the Green Cross Code is on helping children to understand the procedure. It is not enough that children should recite the words. This in turn brings out the need for adequate teaching, and this is an area, particularly with young children, where parents must play a key rôle. Up to the age of 5 a child's safety is entirely the responsibility of the parent or guardian. After that, they must still play an important part in advising and helping their children. The


Department began a campaign last year, using leaflets to draw parents' attention to the problem and to offer advice. Incidentally, since the introduction of the Green Cross Code child pedestrian casualties have dropped from 39,300 in 1972 to 30,400 in 1975.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am interested in these figures because I had a good deal to do with the introduction of the Green Cross Code. How does the drop in casualties relate to the number of vehicle journeys? Is it an absolute drop, or a relative drop in terms of the number of vehicle miles?

Mr. Horam: I think that it is probably an absolute drop, but I shall check.
I turn to the question of zebra crossings which are the subject of Rules 10 to 13. These crossings have been with us for many years and are accepted as one of the safer places for crossing the road. However, a study undertaken by the TRRL has shown that crossing the road within 20 yards of a zebra crosing is three times more dangerous than crossing on it. The revised code also explains the procedure when a pedestrian puts one foot on the crossing to gain precedence. Provided that the pedestrian gives drivers plenty of time to stop and the drivers themselves are aware of their responsibilities towards pedestrians on the crossing, dangers or difficulties should be minimised. In 1971 zigzag lines were introduced to mark the danger area.
I turn to the subject of pelican crossings covered by Rules 14 and 15. These crossings are now being installed in greater numbers throughout the country. There are now more than 2,000 of them and they have been the subject of a number of comments. It became clear that there was a need for more guidance on the use of these crossings than had been given in the draft code, and, therefore, we have rewritten the advice to make it clearer to drivers and pedestrians.
So much for the user on foot. I turn to the road user on wheels and the subject of drink and drugs which is covered by Rule 29. The advice about drinking and driving and the use of drugs and their effect on driving ability has aroused a good deal of comment. Most of it has asked for expansion to give more de-

tailed advice. However, it is difficult to formulate specific advice to cover all cases which would not be open to misinterpretation. On balance, this is as far as one can go in the Highway Code. There is, however, a need for more general information about drinking and its effect on driving in a form which would he useful to the driver, and the recent report of the Blennerhasset Committee on drinking and driving drew attention to this need. I am, therefore, considering how much information might best be provided, and in what form.
In a new rule about buses and bus lanes, Rule 48, drivers are reminded that buses sometimes have difficulty in reentering the traffic flow in busy urban streets and are urged to give way when they safely can. This is in accord with an international convention on road traffic which the United Kingdom expects to adopt in the near future. There has been some comment that this advice conflicts with the earlier Rule 37 about moving off, but the words "you can do so safely", together with the cautions included in Rule 37, are a clear indication that all drivers in this situation are expected to exercise the necessary caution.
Bus lanes are now being installed in many towns and cities to make more efficient use of road space and to assist the flow of public transport, particularly at peak times. The relevant rules in the draft code have been expanded to cover this, and it is proposed to include illustrations of the bus lane signs and road markings.
I come next to driving in fog—Rule 49. Accidents in fog are a continuing cause for concern. Although they form only a comparatively small proportion of injury accidents there is evidence that in fog the frequency and severity of accidents are higher on fast roads and motorways than on other roads. Some measures to reduce the rate of these accidents have already been introduced, such as lighting selected stretches of road, but there is no substitute for better driving behaviour. The same features which make driving on motorways comparatively easy and safe in normal conditions make it harder in fog. More restraint and self-discipline is needed, and, above all, slower speeds and adequate separation distances.
The "Fog Code" brings together the most important rules of behaviour for driving in fog. These have been subject to various suggestions for amended wording. No great advantage has been seen in most of the suggestions, but the revised draft includes advice not to speed up because of a close following vehicle, which was one of the points most often made. It also takes account of new regulations requiring the use of headlamps in poor daytime visibility.
I turn next to roundabouts, Rules 99 to 105. Mini-roundabouts are now sometimes constructed at junctions normally controlled by traffic signs or traffic signals, and studies have shown that they can reduce the number of accidents by up to 30 per cent. Various organisations have asked for an illustration of a mini-roundabout and for more detailed advice about how to negotiate such a roundabout. The rules on procedure at roundabouts were compiled with mini-roundabouts also in mind, but Rule 99 has been expanded to cover the situation where the normal "Give way" rules do not apply. I am considering whether advice on mini-roundabouts should be separated from general advice on roundabouts, and I should welcome Members' views. An illustration will be included of the most usual form of mini-round-about, but it will not be possible to show any of the more complex arrangements.
Rules 125 and 126 deal with what to do at an accident. The revised draft contains more detailed advice on action to be taken by those who are first on the scene of an accident—Rule 125—and new advice on what to do if a vehicle containing dangerous goods is involved—Rule 126. This is related to the new system of "hazard labels" which is being introduced for such vehicles. The labels will be illustrated in the new revised code.
In response to demand from the voluntary aid societies advice on first aid has been restored to the code and is contained in a section at the back.
Rules 127 to 134 deal with cyclists, and there are some extra rules for cyclists. This section contains only minor changes from the present Highway Code, but

many comments were received suggesting that Rule 129 contained an error and that
Ride in single file on busy narrow roads
should read "busy or narrow roads". The omission of "or" from what is in the current code was intentional. Strong representations had been received from cycling interests that "busy or narrow roads" was too restrictive, and the point has been accepted.
The draft code includes advice about an alternative procedure for cyclists at roundabouts where, because of inexperience or any other reason, a cyclist did not feel able to follow normal roundabout procedure. The wisdom of having such alternative advice was doubted by some commentators, but there is a risk that, if the code were inflexible on this point, inexperienced or timid cyclists might feel bound to follow it, perhaps to their cost. The alternative procedure is therefore maintained—Rule 132.
I come next to the road user and animals—Rules 135 to 141. More people now ride horses for pleasure, often on public roads. There is, therefore, a greater risk of accident between them and vehicles. This section incorporates a change in procedure in that persons leading an animal are now advised to do so on the left, keeping the animals on their left—instead of leading on the right, as previously. This change resulted from consultations with representatives of horse riding interests. There was conflicting advice on this, but the clear balance of opinion was in favour of the change. I do not pretend to know a great deal on this subject, but that was the advice we received.
The next heading is motorway driving, and I direct particular attention to motorway signals—Rules 163 to 167. We have expanded the advice about motorway signals by explaining exactly what to do when red lights are flashing over one or more lanes. Police comments indicated the need for this advice.
I come next to the road user and railway level crossings—Rules 173 to 182. This section of the code has been revised to explain how to use the various types of level crossing. Most important are the updated rules dealing with the


use of automatic half-barrier level crossings. These follow new safety precautions and procedures which were introduced as a result of the inquiry into the accident at Hixon level crossing in 1968.
My next heading is metrication. A considerable number of suggestions were received that the Highway Code should show metric units in all cases in addition to or in place of imperial units. This would pose a difficult problem: the complexity would tend to confuse most road users, particularly since speed limits and road signs will not be metricated for some time. This is probably a case where the Highway Code should follow other decisions rather than lead them.
A number of comments were received expressing concern at the length of the revised code. Many other letters asked for even more items to be included. Obviously, the aim must be to keep the code as short as possible; but the volume of modern traffic and the complexity of roads and legislation inevitably meant that additional advice had to be included, and therefore, the number of points has increased from nearly 150 to about 180. However, I am confident that every effort has been made to make the code as short as possible, and I assure the House that, as long as I am a Minister in this Department, that will continue to be the case, for, as I have said before, my personal belief is that the complex of laws, regulations and advice which confronts the motorist should be kept as simple as possible.
Finally, I repeat that this is not the debate after which the new Highway Code will, or will not, go into operation. That has yet to come. What we are doing now is inviting Members' comments on the proposed code so that we may study those comments before submitting a final text for parliamentary approval. I assure hon. Members that we shall listen most carefully and sympathetically to all the points made tonight.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: This is a short debate and I shall be brief. On the last occasion when we debated the Highway Code, Richard Marsh was Minister of Transport and, with the endearing frankness

which was and is his characteristic, he observed that, with a bit of luck, somebody else would be dealing with the next debate on it. However, I doubt whether even Richard Marsh believed that the next debate on the matter would be delayed for another eight years, for he spoke those words in December 1968. That, of course, is the first point to be made about the debate, though I hasten to say that I make no party-political point, for I do not believe that issues of safety are in any way matters for party-political dispute.
There has, however, been a substantial delay, and the result is that the code, which is intended to be a complete guide to anyone using the highway, has not been comprehensive. It contains no mention of new developments such as temporary speed limits. That is one matter which comes to mind, and it has been one of the major points raised by organisations outside the House. Both the AA and the RAC, for example, hope that the procedure for making changes can be streamlined, and I must say that I have a good deal of sympathy with that view.
Indeed, I go rather further. It seems to me that, in parliamentary terms, road safety is a Cinderella subject. For good reason, there are debates on specific items of legislation, as, of course, there have to be. But a general debate on road safety is a rarity.
Yet, if any subject deserves the regular attention of the House, it is road safety. Last year, 83,000 people were killed or seriously injured on our roads. They included 35,000 drivers or passengers in cars, 20,000 pedestrians, and 16,000 riders of motor cycles, mopeds, or motor scooters. The figures for accidents among children are particularly serious—500 children are killed and thousands more injured a year. These figures alone call for the regular attention of the House.
I hope that it is recognised that there is a limit to the amount of legislation which can he passed in this area. The law clearly has a place, but what also must be recognised is that laws to be effective must be enforced, and that puts extra burdens on the police service, which is already overstretched and overburdened. Therefore, we must as a nation place more and more emphasis on preventing accidents. The public,


whether as motorists, motor cyclists, cyclists or pedestrians, must take more action to guard themselves.
Within this voluntary action, the Highway Code, which basically lays down guidance rather than law, as the hon. Gentleman said, has an important part to play. But if I am right in saying that the emphasis today should be on prevention, upon guidance, upon persuasion, it is a process that this House should lead rather than debate it irregularly and at lengthy intervals. I suggest that our aim should be an annual debate on road safety. Sometimes the time may be required for considering further amendments to the code, but when it is not required in that way we should debate the issues of road safety generally.
That would meet both points which are causing concern—first, the necessary consultation with Parliament before changes are made in the code, and, secondly, the assurance of time being regularly made available to debate what is surely in terms of loss of life and injury one of the most important issues that we face in this country.
Clearly, there are criticisms and omissions from the code to which we shall come, but I think that the starting point is that, for all its omissions, even now it it is a code which, if followed, would dramatically reduce the number of accidents. The most important question is how many people actually read and take note of the code, how many know well the advice that it contains—and the research which has been conducted into that aspect is not, to put it at its mildest, reassuring.
The code appears to be one of the great unread classics. Almost everyone knows of it, but few dip into it, at least once their driving test is successfully out of the way. It is a work of high repute but, regrettable, not much heeded.
I give an example. The AA magazine Drive carried out a survey of 100 motorists. It asked them to answer 10 questions set by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. The results showed that 78 out of the 100 scored less than 50 per cent. and 18 scored less than 25 per cent. The motorist with the lowest score, who had been driving three years, got only 6 per cent. correct answers.
Another survey, carried out among primary school children between the ages of eight and 11, set a much simpler test. The results were a little better, but even so 70 children out of 180 returned a score of less than 50 per cent. We shall discuss the detail of the code tonight, but let us also remember that the major problem remains of getting the message over from the code, a message on which there is little disagreement.
That message has to be given more impact. Clearly, different parts of the code will require emphasis at different times. For example, it may be necessary to hammer home the message in the code about driving in fog. The Department, through its vehicle licensing office at Swansea, now sends out by post reminders to motorists that their road fund tax is about to expire. There seems to be no reason why this opportunity should not be taken for campaigns based on the code itself. As these notices have to go out anyway, it will surely require little extra effort by the Department to include a message from the code which it wants to put over in campaigning terms.
I want to deal with four points about the code itself. The first criticism is that the opportunity should be taken to advise drivers on passenger safety. This point was also made by the Association of County Councils. It pointed out that this is of particular relevance to the safety of children in the need, for example, to use child safety locks when they are fitted.
Another point, raised in Committee on the Seat Belts Bill, is that children should travel in the back seat. Indeed, in Austria, West Germany and Luxembourg, I understand, it is the law that children under the age of 12 shall not travel in the front of a car. When this point was raised in Committee on the Seat Belts Bill the Government replied that it could not be included in that legislation, but I think that there is no reason why guidance to that effect should not be included in the code.
Secondly, there is the subject of seat belts and the need to wear them. The point is made in the code, but should be underlined, that wearing seat belts makes sense and saves lives. It is important that that point should be made because, whatever differences there may be about compulsion, there has never been any conflict


about the advice that the motorist and the passenger should wear seat belts. It is important to emphasise this, because the Seat Belts Bill appears to have run out of parliamentary time. But that does not diminish in any way the message itself. Indeed, it probably makes it more important that a new effort should be made to promote the voluntary use of seat belts.
Thirdly, I welcome the attention given in the code to two groups often ignored the motorcyclist and the cyclist. The latter requires special consideration. Having borrowed a bike for National Bike Week and in a moment of supreme folly cycled round Parliament Square, I speak with some feeling on that subject, and I welcome the special section devoted to cycling in the code.
The motor cycle is becoming increasingly popular in this country, yet there is no compulsory training for the motor cyclist. Doubtless the argument will be that compulsory training at present would cost too much to introduce and would be a matter of great complexity. I accept that argument at this stage, but at some stage we should contemplate embarking on compulsory training. In the meantime, there is no reason why brief details of the training courses available should not be published—courses like the old-established RAC-ACU scheme and the excellent training programme which I recently visited at Birmingham.
As there is no compulsory training, many new owners may not know where to look for guidance. A reference in the Highway Code to the courses which are available would be of considerable public benefit. Equally, perhaps there should be reference to clothing. Crash helmets are not the only protection for motor cyclists, and perhaps the code could include guidance about wearing strong clothing and clothing which shows up in the dark.
The fourth point I wish to make is about disabled drivers and their passengers. This is a category which gets insufficient attention in this House. Mr. Peter Large, the much respected chairman of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled, has approached the Department with the suggestion that the new edition of the Highway Code should contain an illustration of the orange badge

and the optional rear badge, as well as a brief description for the non-disabled driver of the orange badge scheme itself.
He also suggested that there should be a reference in the code telling non-disabled drivers not to use parking bays labelled "Disabled drivers only". Perhaps these should be labelled not "Disabled drivers only", but "Disabled persons only". This would be much better, as it would avoid arguments which might arise at present if a wheelbound person is not the driver of the car. I believe that the interests of disabled drivers and passengers should be looked after very carefully by this House.

Mr. Clement Freud: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that it is also very important that parking bays for disabled drivers should be more accessible than they are? For example, it is incredibly difficult to park in Star Chamber Court and in the few bays reserved for disabled drivers in the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Fowler: That is a good point, but it goes a little wider than the scope of the Highway Code. Nevertheless, I agree with the hon. Member.
It does seem right to emphasise that the issues paramount in this debate are that there should be regular debates on road safety in the House as a contribution to reducing the toll of accidents, particularly among children, so that changes in the code can be made more readily and more speedily than they are, and that we should get over the message of the Highway Code itself. Unless we can do that, argument about the details is of very little avail.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I shall not keep the House more than a few minutes as I wish to raise only two points with the Minister. I understand that the Automobile Association has made few comments about the Highway Code and, therefore, it is obviously satisfied with it, and the RAC has told me that the amendments which it submitted have been taken into account in the code. I congratulate the Government on that, and I am sure that the document is a first-class one which should be brought in as quickly as possible.
The first point I wish to make concerns hard shoulders on motorways. The white document tells us at Rule 169 that we must not park on the hard shoulders of motorways except in emergencies. But I know one or two fairly classic cases of people driving down motorways in the early hours of the morning and being extremely tired. This happened to me during the referendum campaign, when I realised that it was very stupid to try to travel 150 miles after midnight, when I was already tired.
There was a case in my constituency when a man who had not been drinking felt extremely tired, so he pulled on to the hard shoulder of the motorway and drank some black coffee. The police came along and prosecuted him. They were within their rights to do so, and I am not complaining about that. The magistrates proved the case. However, I think that this is a matter in which common sense should prevail. I do not want everything written into the Highway Code, as we cannot provide for every eventuality, but I believe that there should be some guidance about situations like that.
Another point I wish to raise concerns giving way to the right. Of course, we know that a motorist must give way to the right at roundabouts and mini-roundabouts. But at certain road junctions—there are two in my constituency—there is doubt about which is the principal road. Sometimes the main road comes in on the left and then goes off sharp left, and there is dispute about who should give way to whom. Both roads may be marked with dotted lines. Often drivers start to cross the lines and then stop because they are not sure whether they should give way. This is a matter which should be considered—whether it should be a requirement to give way to the right at crossroads when no particular road is the principal road.
I realise that although the Highway Code mentions seat belts it cannot say anything about compulsion. However, I hope that the guidance on seat belts will take account of roads which run alongside rivers and canals such as in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). If there are accidents on such roads, drivers quite

often finish up in the canals or the rivers. One of my constituents was driving along Ryde Pier, which is the longest pier in Britain now that Southend Pier has been badly burned, and he did not know that a cross-Solent steamer had hit the pier in the middle. Consequently he went straight into the "drink", and he was wearing a seat belt. He was very lucky to get out alive. Therefore, perhaps some advice could be given about the times when it is better not to wear seat belts. I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to these points.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Minister was right to use the phrase "a long gestation period". The proposed Highway Code has been waiting for a long time for this debate. Those of us who in the previous Government were responsible for road safety much regretted the fact that we could not bring it forward then. I am glad that the Minister has been able to do so tonight.
I have three especial interests in this matter. As the House knows, I am connected with the police, and I shall to some extent reflect their views. I was previously involved in road safety at the Department. I have also one or two small constituency points to put to the Minister.
Most of us are rather schizophrenic about the motor vehicle, which is the cause of much of the problem. To me it has always been half mistress and half monster: half mistress in the sense that I doubt whether there are many possessions on which the average citizen lavishes so much loving care—or, indeed, so much money—as the motor car; half monster in the sense that in our modern society the motor car kills, maims, pollutes, deafens, and takes up far too much valuable space whether parked or moving, in the centre of our great cities. We all recognise the motor car as a creature which extends our freedom. It is indispensable to our society. But none the less it wreaks much mischief—not least in that it kills, maims and pollutes.
We are also schizophrenic in our attitude to the use of the motor vehicle. When people are driving through my village, I like them to drive at 30 mph, taking care of my children and looking after my environment. But, of course,


when I am driving through other people's villages and I see 30 mph signs used in what appear to me to be quite unnecessarily restrictive ways, I wonder why on earth the authorities have put up such useless signs. So we all have a different attitude towards the use of the motor car in the area in which we live as opposed to its use in areas in which we drive.
There are three respects in which Government and Parliament can operate to prevent accidents and to assist road safety. These relate to the vehicle, the road and the driver.
With regard to the vehicle, the first approach must be at the construction end. We must make sure that the manufacturer engineers as much safety as he can into the vehicle itself. This is something which all Governments require by British Standards and through the Construction and Use Regulations.
Having manufactured the car, we have then to make certain that it stays safe. This is where inspection arises. It is an important duty that the Department's examiners carry out.
But I am quite sure from my own experience that the ways in which we can achieve most improvement in respect of vehicles are through the use of seat belts, improving the standard of tyres, endeavouring to make much more progress with anti-jack-knifing devices for heavy vehicles and by making greater progress with international agreements concerned with the safety of vehicles in Europe.
I need not elaborate on these points, but I urge on the Minister that if he wishes to be taken seriously—as I know he does and deserves to be—in this matter of road safety to find parliamentary time to get the seat belt legislation on the statute book. I was never in favour of compulsion but I became persuaded after having seen a very large number of cranial injuries which would not have happened had seat belts been required to be worn. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to get that legislation through quickly.
I should also like to know from the Minister how far the Department has got with the anti-jack-knifing arrangements for heavy vehicles.
With regard to roads, there are two primary aspects. The first is to build better and safer roads. The second is to put signs or regulations on those roads to encourage people to use them safely.
I very much regret that, due to our economic circumstances—and also the wrong priorities of the Government—the road programme has been slashed so heavily. I am sorry about this on road safety grounds. Well engineered and well constructed roads make a substantial contribution to road safety. They reduce the number of people killed and injured. This is particularly true of the motorways. I regret that our economic circumstances led the previous Minister to conclude that we could no longer have six-lane motorways, and that the number of lanes must henceforth be reduced to four. I believe that was a mistake which we shall regret.
Bypasses unquestionably cut casualties. They are beneficial to the environment of very many villages. They are also cost-effective in that they speed up the traffic, and therefore the business life and exports of our country.
I urge the Minister, in the course of the transport consultation work now going on—which we failed to debate the other night—to have regard to the enormous sums of money fed into the deficits of British Rail. If only a fraction of that money were to be expended on bypasses, there would be a benefit to the economy and the environment, and a very substantial improvement on the road safety side which would more than justify a switch of expenditure in that direction.
Concerning bypasses, I have one constituency point. I do not expect the Minister to answer this evening, but I hope that he will ask his officials to deal with it. In my constituency, in the small village of Beyton, there have been some quite brutal accidents recently. I should be glad if the Minister, in the context of road safety, will look at what is being done to improve the road in question and at the behaviour of motorists, and let me know whether some improvement can be made very quickly.
With regard to the signs and the regulations that we place upon the roads, the Minister will know very well that all over the country there is immense pressure


to have 30 mph limits. Often these are not justified. I hope that he will stick to the policy of successive Governments and apply consistency in speed limit cases. The worst contribution to road safety that we can possibly make is to allow local pressure groups to force through inconsistent speed limits as between one place and the other. As soon as the driver loses confidence that objective criteria have been applied, more harm than good is done to the cause of road safety.
Another point I make is that it is quite abysmal for so many traffic orders made by county councils in the interests of road safety not to have been applied because of disputes at the London Gazette. Owing to these disputes, the orders could not be published and until they are published they cannot legally be enforced. All over the country important traffic orders relevant to road safety—I believe that there are 40 in my own county—have not been put into effect simply because of a printing dispute. This is not satisfactory. It can cause loss of life.
Having dealt with the vehicle and the road, we next have to consider the user of the vehicle and the road. We have the driving test to make sure that the driver of a vehicle is competent. I believe our driving test people do a good job, but I sometimes think that they ought to be able to deal with more applicants in the time available. It is a very expensive apparatus, and if the Minister compares the output with that in the United States, Germany, France and so on, he will find that we are meticulous to a fault in the way in which we perform these tests.
Next I want to touch upon drinking and driving regulations. They are enormously important. I am not in favour of random tests. But there is no getting away from the fact that the effect of the regulations has fallen away quite dramatically over the past five years or so. There are many reasons for this, but there is no doubt that the impact of the initial legislation has worn off to a considerable extent.
Next, I take a point from the proposed new code, namely, the paragraph about overtaking. A great many accidents arise from overtaking. I wonder whether the Minister has considered the possibility

that at least on our six-lane motorways there should be a requirement that the really heavy goods vehicle travelling at a slow speed, especially uphill, should be confined to a "crawler" lane. This is generally done in Europe. It is required in Germany and France. It enables faster vehicles to overtake safely at least on three-lane motorways without, as so often happens in the United Kingdom, the heavy goods vehicle pulling out and attempting to overtake on long hills, thereby causing frustration which in turn breeds impetuosity on the part of some drivers. In my view, there would be a great deal of merit in insisting on crawler lanes for heavy vehicles on uphill stretches of motorways.
Finally, I want to discuss briefly the problems arising with horses. I declare an interest in that Newmarket is in my constituency and that I convened the meeting of the various horse associations, the NFU and the rest about the recommendations on which some of the passages in the new code are based. At the time, I disagreed with the conclusion reached at the meeting, and I still disagree with that which is embodied in the code.
A horse, like a woman, can be a volatile creature. If a vehicle approaches from behind, the horse does not see it coming and can be very frightened when it starts to overtake and suddenly produces noise and a sense of movement. But if the horse can see the vehicle coming towards it, its rider can rein it in. It is thus much less likely to kick and become excited.
This is why for centuries in New-market, which probably knows more about horses than any other town in the country, it has invariably been the case that we have made our horses face the traffic. Rider and horse alike then know what the problem is. The arguments on this matter are complex. They are finely balanced. But I put it to the Minister that, if I were in his shoes, I would look at that part of the code again.
I conclude by wishing the code well and by making a plea for what at the end of the day is most important of all in road safety, namely, good standards of driving. Far too often we are all careless and inconsiderate. We drive too fast and without due care. I believe


that it is a combination of this lack of consideration, carelessness and thoughtlessness which leads to the appalling carnage which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) illustrated by the catalogue of death and maiming with which he introduced his speech.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey: I wish to refer briefly to one aspect of the proposed new Highway Code which very much affects disabled persons. It concerns the use of zebra and pelican crossings. A number of us have been decrying zebra crossings, but we have many of them and they will be with us for a very long time.
I paid very close attention to the reference made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to the drill to be employed on approaching such a crossing. However, if I can convey anything to him I hope it is that these crossings present some of the most dangerous aspects in the country in terms of road safety.
I have a zebra crossing close to where I live. When I was a county councillor, I was instrumental in having it installed at that point. We have had some of the most tragic accidents imaginable, especially to young schoolchildren, on that zebra crossing simply because due care has not been taken by all road users. We require to take some very special steps to make them a little more safe.
I want to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the use made of these crossings by disabled persons. I ask him to consider the case of a blind person with a stick who approaches a crossing. If he misses the kerb, he may well find himself lying like a bundle on the roadway. I have never been able to understand why we do not ramp the approaches to zebra crossings for disabled persons, such as a blind person who uses a white stick.
But this affects not only blind persons. Physically disabled individuals are also sorely troubled when they try to negotiate a crossing from the kerb on to the highway. Again, one small mistake could result in an accident to a disabled person who is using some form of walking aid and attempting to cross the highway. By ramping and thereby removing the kerb at the approach to a crossing, we could

greatly assist disabled persons. I can even recall the lady with a baby in a pram who tried to negotiate a crossing. When the pram went over the kerb, it tilted and her child, who was not strapped in, landed on the highway and suffered minor injuries. This would have been avoided if the mother with her baby in the pram could have approached the crossing down a ramp instead of having to drop the pram down over the kerb.
The same could be argued for the shopper. Today our housewives like to visit the big stores, and they take trolleys with them. When they approach pedestrian crossings, they find it difficult to negotiate the kerb. I remember an incident where sugar, jam and other precious goods were scattered over the highway because a housewife had difficulty in negotiating the kerb.
I cannot understand why we have not taken action long ago to remove kerbs at pedestrian crossings. Indeed, if in the first place kerbstones were dispensed with at crossings, this would represent a saving because the cost of them would not have to be met. It is as easy to ramp the approach from a pavement to a crossing as it is to install a kerb and expect people to negotiate it.
I appeal to the Minister to consider this problem. I am not suggesting that we should start to remove all kerbs on crossings throughout the United Kingdom from Monday next week. I recognise that it would be a costly experiment, but we could at least make a start in phasing out kerbs and phasing in ramps at zebra, pelican and other crossings. When road improvement schemes are approved, an integral part of the work should be the ramping of all approaches to all crossings. This would be of manifest advantage and benefit, especially to disabled people.

8.30 p.m.

Sir John Langford-Holt: The Minister said that this publication had had a long gestation period. In my criticisms of it, I recall the observation which Sir Winston Churchill is supposed to have made about a camel—that it looked like a horse designed by a committee. I have many criticisms of the document, but I shall not take the time of the House in outlining them all.
When I first read the Highway Code, it was free. Later, one had to pay a penny for a document of three or four pages and after that sixpence for a book of eight or nine pages. We now have 60 pages and a document which costs 50p. It would be irresponsible to say that the only deduction from those facts is that the more pages in the Highway Code, the higher the accident rate.
My instinct is to disagree with the document. It goes into enormous depth and there are 7½ pages setting out the regulations and laws we have to obey. There is even a statement at one point about how to ride a bicycle. Most people can do that without advice from the Minister.
If the document is to go into all this detail, there should at least be an index. I should like to look at the Minister's instructions on riding a bicycle, but I can do so only by thumbing through the whole book. An hon. Member spoke earlier about service areas. Unless one knows the code intimately or is lucky in thumbing through the pages, one cannot find the section dealing with service areas. The document has a list of contents, but that is not an index.
The section on silencers says that they should be efficient, but the mind boggles to contemplate what the word "efficient" means, especially when one considers that all over the country silencers are modified to make more noise rather than less.
For a 60-page, 50p document this has several matters omitted. There is, as far as I can see, no reference to tanker safety markings. I know that discussion of this subject has been going on between the Department and interested authorities for some years, but in a document such as this, the public should be let into the secret.
If something can be said briefly, it is certain that the Department will find a way to say it at length. I used to ask the Ministry of Transport to introduce pictorial road signs and was always given the reply that they were not a clear statement of the legal position. I tried to get the Home Office to approve the use of the word "taxi", but they insisted that "for hire" was the clear statement of the legal position. I have news for the Gov-

ernment—many more people understand "taxi" than" for hire".
There is no advice in the document on standardisation. I have urged the standardisation of bumper heights. Quite serious accidents can be caused when cars' overriders get hooked together. I should have thought that some space could have been found to include advice on this subject to someone, even if only to British Leyland. I wrote to Lord Stokes on this subject suggesting that if all cars had the same bumper heights, a great deal of trouble and misery would be avoided.
I have been told that European countries would not agree to this standardisation and that we must await international agreement. I cannot see that international agreement is made easier if we are at sixes and sevens. It would be much easier if we at least had started the process. I understand that there is an EEC directive on the subject which we have accepted and since ignored. I believe that the Swedish Government have introduced standardisation.
I shall not go too far into the advice that is given, but this is an extensive document. The stealing of motor cars is a great evil. The Minister should know that one can get into practically any British made car with two bent spoons. I will show him how to do it if he is interested: I did it recently. A friend of mine—not me; I could not afford it—has a Rolls-Royce. He had left the key inside. We tried to break the window with a jack. Unfortunately, it was made of bullet-proof glass. So we had to get in by using two bent spoons.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Silver spoons!

Sir J. Langford Holt: We used two bent spoons to get into the Rolls-Royce. That is the kind of standardisation that I should like to see, but I understand that it does not come into this document.
Not enough is said on the subject of motorways. We are told about braking distances, but there is nothing about the rows of heavy goods vehicles which thrash up and down motorways at enormous speed. I see them every weekend nose to tail—just like a lot of randy dogs—going all the way up the motorway. Those chaps cause the accidents.


When a crash occurs, one knows that it is a multiple crash because a whole lot of vehicles bump into each other.
Nothing is said about GB-plates. These plates are presumably to guide the police in identification—not the GB-plates, because they are put on British cars when they go abroad. But in this country if a car has an I-plate, it is supposed to mean that it is an Italian car; if it has a "P", it is from Portugal; and if it has an "A" it conies from Austria.
I have taken up this matter with the Department. I have suggested that we should have some clarity. Recently I passed a car—I reported it to the Department; the Minister can look it up in the files—which had a GB-plate, an I-plate for Italy, "P" for Portugal, "F" for France and "D" for Germany. Heaven knows where that car came from: I did not know. I am sure the police did not know, and nobody else would know. I was told that it was not possible for this kind of thing to be included in this document.
I have read through this document as far as I can. I was told in correspondence with the Department that it would endeavour to include a passage about L-plates. Time and again one sees cars with L-plates being driven along motorways. One knows that learner-drivers are not allowed on motorways. If a driver is not a learner, he is misleading other drivers on the road if he displays L-plates on his car. It should be made clear that it is not correct—I shall not use the word "illegal'—for people who are not learner-drivers to drive on motorways with L-plates on their cars, because they mislead other drivers.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) referred to drivers getting tired on motorways. I must tell the Minister that one need not be careless, drunk, or, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight said, have spent over many hours in this House to become drowsy on a motorway. Motorways have a mesmeric effect on drivers. It cannot be helped. I have driven on motorways and known that I have been an absolute menace because I could so easily have gone to sleep between one branch-off and the next. Yet I had to go on because, had I pulled in, I should have been prosecuted for doing

so. However, I must have been much more dangerous on the road than if I had been able to pull off on to the hard shoulder.
My last point concerns the changing of road signs. I get the impression that local authorities are involved in a lot of unnecessary expense in making road signs bigger when the smaller one have been understood for many years. I believe that we are now changing the 30-milesper-hour sign because the figure"3" can be confused with the figure "5". That does not say much for the people who originally designed those road signs.
I end as I began. This document puts in far too much, and I should like to see it reduced to three-quarters of its present size. If that is done, let us have an index, and let us have some of the matters to which I have drawn attention included in the document.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: This debate on the proposed Highway Code is important. Those taking driving tests the year after next will have to know what is in this document, and those who are enthusiastic motorists and the motoring organisations will study it so that they know the right thing to do on the highway.
In his opening speech the Minister referred to Rule 68—the new Rule 75—dealing with bus lanes. He knows that I have asked a number of Questions about this, and he then referred me to the Government booklet on traffic signs. When is a bus lane a bus lane, and when is it not? The rule does not tell us very much. I do not think that the Highway Code is nearly explicit enough on this issue, though I received an assurance in correspondence that the matter would be made more explicit.
Let us consider first the situation in London. On some roads one sees a heavy white line, and between, say, 8.30 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. the bus lane operates as such, but for the rest of the day the lane is open to other traffic. Other bus lanes operate in the evening from, say, 4.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. Yet other roads have bus lanes which operate as such morning and evening. In Sheffield there are bus lanes which, though badly sign-posted, are for buses only for the whole 24 hours. Different signs in different


parts of the country have different implications, and I think that the new rule has little regard for that.
Even more complicated, however, is the operation of bus gates through which private vehicles cannot go. Some lanes and gates are open to buses and taxis, and some are not, yet there are no illustrations in the Highway Code indicating signs to the appropriate effect. I do not see any reference to this at the back of the publication. There are disparities throughout the country, and if we are to improve road safety we must explain the situation to drivers.
Some hon. Members know that some months ago I had an unfortunate incident when returning home to Holland Park from the House of Commons with a taxi driver. Going past the Albert Hall at Kensington, a taxi driver became irritated that I was travelling at only slightly over 30 m.p.h. I was doing that because I thought a bus was clinging to the bus lane. There is no doubt that the taxi driver wanted to pass me, and he was irritated because I stayed in the middle of the road. I knew that he was irritated, but I did not bargain for what happened later. About a mile beyond that point he crowded me and nearly put me on the pavement. If that could happen to a Member of Parliament going home at night, it can happen to any citizen, but that is another story. By not understanding, and I have since investigated the full implications of the appropriate bus lane signs, I had obviously irritated another road user. On another occasion shortly after that, just before midnight I gained the impression that the driver of a bus going down this same bus lane thought that it was a bus lane for 24 hours a day and objected to my being in that lane.
Bus lanes are a good and a worthwhile new experiment, but every bus driver on his route must know what is involved. Every taxi driver and every car owner, too, must know what is involved, yet there are only two lines on the subject in Rule 68 in the proposed Highway Code. It may be right that we should deal with it in only two or three lines in the Highway Code, but there should be other documents to inform drivers. Does the Highway Code even now do this sufficiently elaborately?
I turn to Rule 149, dealing with driving on motorways in fog. The South Yorkshire police categorically recommend that at night, and particularly in fog and bad weather, drivers should use headlights on full beam as against dipped on motorways. Again, I raised this with the Minister's Department and was told that it had been properly researched by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory and would be dealt with in the Highway Code. There is little guidance in the documents before us in that respect about what is likely to be in the new Highway Code.
In a steel-making area such as South Yorkshire, I think I am right in saying that anything up to 10 tons of scrap is taken off the motorway each week in that area by one police authority alone. I had an unfortunate experience driving up the motorway at night when my car hit a billet which tore out the tube between my petrol tank and the carburettor within a matter of at most a minute but nearer 30 seconds. Obviously, I was unable to progress any further. When I had stopped I found that petrol was pouring out of the rubber tube near the engine on to the road.
There is obviously an advantage in using full-beam headlights in certain conditions. The Highway Code states that a car driving at 70 mph needs a 315-ft stopping distance. The disadvantage is that the driver of a car may be embarrassed both by the full headlights of a car behind him and by the full headlights of an oncoming car, even though he may have an anti-dazzle mirror, if these recommendations are followed. This is not referred to in the Highway Code, and perhaps it ought not to be. I understand that the Minister may be thinking about this.
The third point I wish to raise concerns the use of hazard warning lights and the red triangle. To what extent is a motor manufacturer expected to provide hazard lights? To what extent should the motorist be made at all times to carry the triangle? There was one occasion this year when I was stuck descending an icy mountain pass, when I welcomed the fact that on a slippery hill vehicles had a 100-yard warning of trouble ahead. Should not drivers be obliged to carry such a triangle?
I ask for guidance about situations concerning animals. I looked for this in the Highway Code. I do not know where one gets such guidance. Perhaps it is in some law referred to at the end of the code. If a dog crosses in front of a car, I have always understood that, even at the risk of the life of the animal, one should not risk oneself, one's vehicle or other road users. This matter is not touched upon in the code. Is it intended that this should be avoided in the Highway Code?
On page 61, under the heading "Prevention of theft", it is stated that a driver should never leave a driving licence and insurance certificate in his vehicle. That is sensible, but on the other hand it probably means that the driver must carry both documents on his person. That is particularly important outside this country.
Finally, I refer to the European driving licence and international standards. I wish to concentrate on international standards in so far as they involve drivers throughout the European Economic Community and elsewhere. To what extent is this code similar to that applied in the United States, Canada and the Community countries? To what extent have we idiosyncrasies of our own? To what extent are these discussed with the international organisations to try to achieve conformity to make it easier for drivers who choose to drive in other countries?
I cite the problems which I feel must be looked at, although I am not certain whether they should be looked at in the Highway Code. The purpose of these questions is not to seek an immediate answer this evening. Rather we should consider whether they should be tackled in the Highway Code or in other documents so that the driver knows what he is about once he has passed his driving test.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I declare an interest as honorary president of the National Association of Approved Driving Instructors—I would stress at this time, the honorary! I wear a slightly different hat from the last time I spoke on a transport measure since there has now been an amalgamation between the National Association of Driving Instructors and the Society of Approved Driving Instructors in order to make a larger,

more powerful and, it is hoped, more effective unit representing the interests of thousands of approved driving instructors in Britain. With that additional authority, I welcome the new Highway Code and wish it well in its aim to reduce the appalling carnage on our roads.
I need not take time repeating the many points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) with regard to improving the code now before the House, or the further remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). I did not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, either on behalf of my Association or personally, with regard to the need to make the wearing of seat belts compulsory. However, much of what else he had to say was important and useful and I commend my hon. Friend's remarks to the Minister.
I am not quite sure what status pages 53 to 60 of the proposed new Highway Code, dated 1974, now enjoy in relation to the document we are debating tonight. Speaking as a lawyer, I think people would find it extremely valuable—perhaps a means whereby they might avoid getting themselves into the hands of lawyers—if the new Highway Code contained "The Law's Demands" section. I do not think that it is proposed to add them to the document before us or it would have been included, but it would be useful for citizens to be able to cast their eyes down such an exhaustive list, even though that might not meet with the approval of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) who was asking for a slimming down of the document. It would be useful for citizens to cast their eyes down and literally see what the do's and don't's rendering them liable to criminal prosecution were.
One part which might be improved is the section on page 58 headed
If you are involved in an accident".
There is always a lot of confusion about whether one has to report an accident to the police. As I understand it, the position is that if it is a damage-only accident, and if one exchanges the name and address of the owner and the registration number of the vehicle, one does not have to report the matter to the police. However, if one is in an injury accident it is


not enough to exchange the name and address and the details of the car—one has to produce a certificate of insurance to the other party or to the police officer on the scene and, failing that, one must report to the police.
Those facts are repeated in this document, it is true, but by putting together the words damage and injury in the phrase:
If you are involved in an accident—which causes damage or injury
the document makes it difficult for the ordinary person to see what he must do if he is engaged in an injury accident as opposed to an ordinary damage-only accident. If it is the law that a damage-only accident does not have to be reported to the police if names and addresses have been exchanged, that should be more clearly stated so that anyone who is in a bit of a panic, as is common at many accidents, can understand that. He should also be able to understand, if that is the law, that an accident involving injury need not be reported provided that insurance certificates have been exchanged. Common sense dictates that if that is the law, it should be clearly set out.
The most important point which I make on behalf of driving instructors is that this revised code has existed unimplemented for nearly three years. Let us get it into action quickly, with no more time wasted. If its proposals are sound, and if they are likely to save life or injury, every week's delay might mean death or injury which could have been avoided. If properly presented to the public the introduction of the new code will cause many more people than perhaps read the old code to do so. This is a golden opportunity, which the Minister must not let slip, to secure a substantial improvement in driving standards from the moment of presentation of this new document.
Because of the delay in introducing the document, two problems have faced many learner drivers in some parts of the country. First, the existing Highway Code has gone out of print and has become difficult or impossible to obtain, particularly, I understand, in the London area. That certainly causes unnecessary irritation and may in some cases delay the qualification of drivers. That is wholly undesirable.
Second, some examiners are asking questions about pelican crossings, uncontrolled crossings and zig-zag markings, although those matters do not figure in the existing code. That is unfair. Both those problems would disappear with the speedy implementation of this code.
No group of people are more dedicated to the cause of road safety than the approved driving instructors whom I represent. It follows that no group of citizens are more anxious to see the speedy introduction of the code. We hope that the new and necessary legislation will not be long in coming.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Berry: I, too, welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate, not least because I spoke the last time that we debated the Highway Code, in November 1968, although at a rather later hour. Then, the House rose at 11.31 p.m. and the debate was curtailed, so I congratulate the Government on at least having put down the subject for debate at this time.
But the Government have been slow in bringing this matter forward. Last time, they went to the opposite extreme: they bounced it on us and produced the Highway Code before Parliament could discuss it. Mr. Marsh then rightly said that in future he would ensure that we had a chance to consider it in advance. The Government have kept that pledge, but they have been slow in bringing the code forward. However, we are discussing it now and I hope that it will be published before long.
I do not often quote my own speeches—they are not very exciting even at the time that I make them—but I did make a couple of points in my speech on the last occasion which have not been fully taken into account this time. Nor did I have an answer last time.
The 1960 code advised pedestrians in shopping centres always to use zebra crossings. The 1968 code left out the word "always", an omission which is perpetuated in the code today. I feel that the advice would be strengthened if "always" could be reinstated.
In the same debate I referred to parking. The code provided that cars should not be parked opposite each other if that would result in narrowing the road to less than the width of two vehicles. In the


1960 code "nearby" was also included. The code provided that cars should not park opposite or nearly opposite each other. The provision is not included in the proposed Highway Code and the code would be strengthened if it were. We all know from our own driving experience that on narrow roads it is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, for cars to be parked on either side of the road near each other as it is for them to be parked directly opposite each other.
In the previous debate my great friend David Webster, speaking from the Front Bench, asked whether free copies of the code would be available for use in schools. It is essential that the code should be widely available, but now that the price has increased considerably, that may not be possible, and I urge the Minister to make available free copies of the code for use in schools.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) referred to Europeanisation. I am glad that we have not included in the code the phrase "Every motor vehicle must have a driver".
In my previous speech I said:
I hesitate to suggest that the code should be longer than it is, but the former code contained a section … concerning first aid."—[Official Report, 18th November 1968; Vol. 773, c. 1063.]
I am glad to see that the Minister has reinstated the first aid section.
I am sure that drivers of vehicles bearing L-plates on motorways are not learners, but I agree with hon. Members who referred to such drivers in our previous debate and said that something should be done to prevent cars with L-plates from being on motorways.
It is right that there should be warning signs on motorways advising drivers to slow down, but the warnings appear far in advance of minor obstructions, such as when painting is being done. That is crying "Wolf". A person who has had to slow down to 40 m.p.h. when he could safely have continued at 60 m.p.h. or 70 m.p.h. for a couple of miles may later take no notice of the warning signs when there has been a serious accident. I am all for being on the safe side, but that is to overdo it.
There is only one short reference in the code to disc zones. I imagine that in future there will be more disc park-

ing and I hope that the Minister will extend the reference to disc zones.
Details of the sizes of lorries that are permitted to park at night without lights are given in the code, but trailers are being left without lights and without identification. There is a suspicion—and I have discussed this matter with the borough engineer in my constituency—that trailers are brought by lorry and parked in residential streets and then, in the morning, are taken away by a different lorry with a different number plate. I understand that there is a loophole in the law in this connection. Obviously, the police have more important things to do than to spend their nights observing trailers, but I hope that the Minister will examine the law in this respect and will see whether the advice in the Highway Code could be improved.
Much has been said about pelican crossings, which I welcome because they have been a tremendous help. However, I am doubtful about the new criteria which the Government have recently adopted. Instead of going on the old criteria involving the number of people crossing a certain road and the vehicle traffic flow, the situation now appears to be governed by the number of accidents on a road. It would be unfortunate if a certain number of accidents had to occur before the need for a pelican crossing could be established.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does not my hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties about pelican crossings is that they are far more expensive than they need to be? If the Japanese or the Americans had to produce 10,000 rubber sheets for such a purpose and the electronic equipment to go with it, they would get on with the job. Unfortunately, we do not handle things in that way and, because they are relatively expensive, we have few of them. That factor often inhibits an authority from agreeing to provide a pelican crossing.

Mr. Berry: My hon. Friend is right. Similar arguments are used in my constituency because the surface of the road must be adapted and all the rest of it. The Minister is present and he will have noted my hon. Friend's comments.
There has been a change in the wording from that which appeared in the


original on the question of advice to young children. Originally the wording said
Do not allow very young children out alone on the road.
Now the wording has been modified to include children
up to age five at least".
Personally, I would raise that age, but if the Department has had advice on the matter and can impart it to the House, perhaps we may be told.
I wish to refer to the subject of bus lanes. I feel that in that regard the comments in the code could be extended a little. I have some doubts about the anti-flow bus lanes because I feel that there is a danger in that respect. The fact that headlights must be turned on even in the brightest days might be regarded by some people as a warning. Again, perhaps we may be given further information on that score.
I wish to deal with a few smaller points. On page 13 we see the phrase "then signal as necessary". That phrase can be interpreted in any way one likes. Perhaps that is too vague an expression to use in such a document.
There is a reference to mobile shops, and to the fact that care must be taken when one is near them. I thought that that provision could also include reference to milk floats and similar types of vehicles.
A further point can be made about hazard warning lights. If a lorry or van pulls into a side road in which several cars are parked and hazard lights are lit, anybody who drives along that road from behind may only see showing from behind the offside hazard light. The driver may well stop, thinking that the lorry or van is about to pull out because he may not see the other hazard light also flashing. I do not know the answer to that problem, but I put it forward for the Minister's consideration. That situation could sometimes be dangerous.
Mini-roundabouts have been a tremendous success. Such roundabouts have been extremely successful and in many cases bring about a reduction in vehicle speeds on many roads—roads on which, in other circumstances, cars may travel at too great a speed.
A roundabout can be a valuable safety factor, but, in the context of mini-roundabouts, I ask the Minister to look again at the instructions about going round and signalling one's intention to leave the roundabout. One is supposed to signal having passed the exit which one is not using and then signal to turn left just before coming to the exit at which one will leave the roundabout. Mini-roundabouts, however, are so small that it is not possible to do that because, by the time one has signalled, one is virtually on the way out of it, whereas if one starts signalling too soon the indication is that one is pulling out at an earlier exit. I ask the Minister to think about that.
Box junctions are very useful, but, like so many safety and traffic devices, they are useful only in so far as they are observed. We all know that at major junctions in London, for example—no doubt, it happens elsewhere, too—the box junction restriction is not observed, with the result that traffic blocks another main road. However, if the box junction rules can be observed, I believe that they can improve the traffic flow at many of our main road junctions, especially at peak hours.
Those are just a few general thoughts which I put to the Minister. I realise that he could not possibly answer them all, or all the other points which have been raised in the debate, but if he will write to us, having noted them, we shall be grateful. It is vital to keep the Highway Code up to date, and I trust that it will not be too long—certainly, nothing like as long as the period since our last debate—before we have another.
I hope that the Minister will tell us when the new code will appear. I think that the previous debate took place in November and the code came out the following February. There were printing troubles at that time, I believe, and the Minister did not have all the comments to hand. Now, however, he has all the final round of comments, and, after all the delay, it is essential that the new code should be brought out as soon as possible. I give it a warm welcome in advance.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Peter Fry: On the last occasion when I had the responsibility of winding up a debate, I was left


with about two minutes. Tonight, however, I could take considerably longer, though I hasten to assure the House that I shall not take all the time available to me.
First, may I say what a pleasure it is to have the Under-Secretary of State with us on the Front Bench. He is a constituent of mine, and I see it as an honour to speak opposite him. Although I have some doubt about his allegiance at the next General Election, I welcome him none the less and am very pleased at his appointment.
I congratulate all those of my hon. Friends who have spoken, because there has been a series of valuable contributions from our side. In fact, with one notable exception all the comments, save from the Minister himself, have come from the Opposition, and I think that we should be commended for our interest in road safety.
There have been many and various suggestions, some of them, perhaps, a little outside the scope of the Highway Code. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths)—he is not here at the moment—will not mind if I pick on one phrase which he used which, I feel, he would not wish to be taken unfairly. My hon. Friend referred to the motor car which kills, maims and pollutes. In fact, it is not the motor car itself which does those things. It is the driver who kills and maims and who usually has a lot to do with the amount of pollution. That is why we need a Highway Code, since it is far more important to try to advise and control the motorist than to consider only the motor vehicle.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) made some pointed comments about the size and cost of the new code. With respect, I remind him that the suggestion regarding L-plates are already contained in the draft document, Rule 26.
My hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) and for Southgate (Mr. Berry) spoke of the vagueness of the draft code regarding bus lanes. I am sure that if he looks again at the new Rule 75 the Minister will agree that there is a certain element of confusion. In one place we are told

that no other vehicles must use the bus lanes and in another we are told that pedal cycles and taxis can use them if the signs so allow. Perhaps some rewording could remove certain confusion there.
We give these proposals a general welcome and we appreciate the Government's desire to have the fullest consultation. Yet the procedure that has been adopted has been rather prolonged. This has meant considerable delay between publication of the original proposals and the amended proposals, and we still have to wait for the final draft to be laid before Parliament. That is why some of the outside organisations, such as the Association of County Councils, which place great importance on early publication want the new edition to be published at the earliest possible date. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) said, we could speed up the process by having an annual debate on the whole question of road safety, which would mean that any necessary amendments could be made much more rapidly than hitherto.
It is worth underlining that the whole framework of road safety changes constantly. For example, there are the varying speed limits, wished upon us by the energy crisis and by considerations of road safety. But the code as drafted takes no account of the various speed limits, which are highly confusing to the average motorist. There are experiments with "sleeping policemen", which many people believe to be a useful road safety device, particularly in highly residential areas, to prevent fast through traffic. There is need for constant amendment of the code, and it would be a pity to wait another eight years before some of the good ideas which are being suggested at the moment can be put into the code.
Therefore, we believe that there should be a very close look at the question of how the present procedure works, although, of course, without at any time removing the right of interested bodies to be consulted or taking away the Parliamentary control that exists over the publication of this document.
What is clear is that new drivers are. expected to be conversant with the code, but it is a code which is now very much out of date. When someone is taking a


driving test, he is fully aware—particularly if he has an excellent instructor who is a member of the organisation of which my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is president—of the latest developments, but he still has to go back to a document which he knows is faulty in some respects. Therefore, there is strong need for a slightly different method of attending to this matter.
Various organisations have put up proposals on the details in the code. The RAC put up many not all of which have been incorporated. The Association of County Councils also put up ideas. Like the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) it raised the question of disabled people, particularly the deaf. It is perhaps assumed that everyone driving a car can hear, but unfortunately increasing numbers of our fellow citizens cannot hear too well, and the ACC believes that advice should be given about looking out for people who might be deaf.
The association feels rather strongly that the advice given in paragraph 129 on the overtaking of cyclists needs greater emphasis. At a time when the popularity of cycling probably will increase again because of the soaring costs of motoring and other forms of transport, it is important to stress that, although a cyclist apparently occupies only a small part of the road, he or she needs considerable clearance to avoid the danger of accidents. The wording in paragraph 129 should be tightened up. I would prefer the wording "ride in a single file on all main roads and busy narrow roads" and "never ride more than two abreast at any one time". There is a tendency at present for cyclists to take up almost the whole carriageway. Perhaps they do not realise the danger to themselves.
A useful amendment could be made to Rule 29 which deals with driving and taking drugs. It says that if drugs are taken in the course of medical treatment the motorist should consult a doctor. I think that we should insert "or chemist" here. Our GPs are very hard pressed at the moment, and if a chemist is not sure of the effect of any drug he would naturally refer it to a GP.
Rule 54 is concerned with the approach to zebra crossings. The RAC claimed

that when this paragraph was read in conjunction with page 41, particularly with the illustration on page 41, there appeared to be a new obligation imposed on drivers to use an arm signal when approaching a zebra crossing. I am not sure whether this was the intention of the Department, but reading paragraph 54 and looking at page 41 could cause confusion among motorists. However desirable it may be for a motorist to give an arm signal, the fact is that if he is driving in wet or cold weather, he has to go through the process of winding down the window and putting his arm out, and it would surely be better for him to keep both hands on the wheel. I hope that the Minister will look at this again.
In Rule 73 we have advice which is fairly restrictive about driving on three-lane dual carriageways. The advice ignores the fact, largely due to current restrictive speed limits, that there is a very real danger of vehicles driving in two or all three lanes at roughly the same speed. This is highly dangerous and could lead to a multiple pile-up right across the road. If, as is generally indicated, the driver in the middle lane drives at the speed limit, this excludes anyone from using the outside lane unless he exceeds the speed limit. This point is worth looking into again.
Paragraph 122 contains advice about the placing of warning triangles. It would be worth while pointing out that on motorways this kind of triangle should be placed not on the carriageway itself but on the hard shoulder, so that it does not form an obstruction on the motorway. That is not made clear in the code as proposed.
The Minister should be aware of the growing practice of many heavy goods vehicle drivers to overtake on two-lane roads, even though their speed is very little in excess of that of the vehicle which they are overtaking. This point was made graphically by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds. It should be looked into and advice should be given to lorry drivers about this.
A considerable number of detailed points require consideration, but I do not want the Minister to get the impression that we are merely carping and criticising. We give a very general welcome to the new code, and we hope that it will be put into force as soon as possible.
One feature which has emerged from the debate and which needs underlining in the general point that the code is not obligatory. It is, after all, only a code giving advice. It sets out what a sensible man should do. This is where the difficulties start to arise. Various suggestions have been made as to certain instructions that ought to be made obligatory. One of the problems in producing the code and in giving advice to the motorist is the very real one that, whereas we are telling the motorist what he ought to do, we must at the same time be clear that he is not legally required to do a great many of the things suggested.
For example, although—as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield has said—it is highly desirable to wear a seat belt, at the moment there is no legal obligation to do so. The Highway Code says that one should never drink and drive. Although one would hope that most people would not do so, at present quite clearly people can do so, because there is a statutory limit to the amount of alcohol in the blood which is permitted before prosecution arises.
I believe that the Government have a difficult task in putting forward a set of sensible proposals and in deciding which parts of those proposals should become obligatory and part of the law of the land. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that aspect. At the same time, I hope he will appreciate the tremendous fund of goodwill shown on this side of the House. He will receive many suggestions and much co-operation over future legislation, even if we do not necessarily agree on everything.
All in all, therefore, we welcome the opportunity to debate the code. We hope that the Government will not take too long in considering the points that have been made tonight and in publishing the Highway Code in its final form. After all, road safety is the main pre-occupation of us all, and the longer we delay the implementation of the new code the more lives are put at risk.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Horam: I first thank the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) for his kind remarks about me. It is, indeed, a pleasant coincidence that I happen to live in his constituency, and that we are both very interested in trans-

port. I know of his genuine and longstanding interest in this subject, which I willingly acknowledge. Despite these rather flowery comments, I point out that I am registered to vote in another constituency, so that mine is not a vote against the hon. Gentleman in Welling-borough.
The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that, by virtue of the fact that I live in a small village in the northern part of the constituency, I have a particular interest in rural transport, which is also one of my responsibilities. This gives me some experience of the sort of problem with which he will be familiar from his constituency experience, and to which I attach a great deal of importance. I hope that we shall see real progress made in this respect.
Obviously, I cannot deal with all the hon. Gentleman's points, nor shall I be able to deal with the many points raised by the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) in the course of his very interesting speech. Points of this sort, made at some length, need to be considered carefully after reading the Official Report.
I shall not be able to give more than a cursory reply this evening to many of the points made in the debate. It has been a very interesting one, ranging from jack-knifing goods vehicles to randy dogs, and in the course of it some very sensible things have been said.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) made one point with which I wholeheartedly agree, when he said that the procedure for making changes in the Highway Code should be streamlined. I hope that we can make progress in that direction, though obviously not in this code. We have gone through these procedures and it is necessary to seek parliamentary approval, but certainly we can consider that for the future.
I agree with the second general point made by the hon. Gentleman, which was his idea of having an annual debate. Unfortunately, however, I am not my own master in that respect, as recent events show all too clearly. But I shall be lobbying for more time for dealing with transport matters in general, and the hon. Gentleman may care to sign the motion on the Order Paper about the transport debate not taking place last Thursday.
I also agree with the hon. Gentleman's third general point that we should have a limit to the amount of legislation and regulations governing the life of the motorist. The hon. Gentleman made the point that it is difficult to enforce such legislation and regulation if it becomes excessive. I agree. Indeed, I take it further, because I feel that regulation should be limited for its own sake. It should not become too complex. It is right to keep matters as simple as possible. The life of the motorist is complicated enough as it is, and too much regulation simply overburdens him.
The Highway Code has been described as one of the great unread classics to be put alongside the Bible and Shakespeare. I read a remark recently about the National Theatre's production, which was described as "the justly neglected classic". I think that the Highway Code is an unjustly neglected one. We issue 1,250,000 of them each year to applicants for provisional licences. There is some hope that some of them read something about it. Certainly they have to answer questions about it during the driving test. We are also spending about £1 million a year on pedestrian publicity, which is the context in which the point was raised, mainly on the Green Cross Code. The hon. Gentleman made the point about the use of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea to send out reminders. Certainly I undertake to consider that.
As for the hon. Gentleman's detailed points on the code, as opposed to those general issues, he raised the familiar topic about children on the back seats of cars and not the front seats. It is very difficult to legislate on this subject, but it is covered in Rule 27 of the proposed Highway Code. I hesitate to suggest that it is unread by the hon. Gentleman, but it is covered to some extent there. Seat belts are also referred to in Rule 27.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that motor cycle training should be made compulsory, Training of this kind is expensive to make compulsory, and we think that it would be of doubtful value. We prefer to think in terms of giving more information about voluntary training schemes such as those run by the RAC

and the schools traffic education programme. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. However, making training of this kind compulsory on a wider scale runs up against public expenditure problems. I think that we must do all that we can to extend voluntary systems and give them greater emphasis.
As for the disabled, Rule 113 mentions orange badges. I take the point which the hon. Gentleman made generally about the problems of the disabled. I am well aware of them.
The speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) was extremely interesting and he made a number of useful suggestions. He asked a specific question about anti-jack-knifing devices for heavy goods vehicles. About 95 per cent. of all articulated vehicles sold in the country have load-sensing devices which reduce the likely chance of jackknifing. Anti-lock brake devices are being developed, and we look forward to their being in more widespread use. These devices are being considered in possible regulations internationally, and presumably they will eventually have some application in this country. They need a little more testing before we decide to go further.
The MOT test is to be extended from 1st January to cover seat belts, windscreen wipers and washers and indicators. There will be almost immediate progress in this area.
Crawler lanes on motorways are provided when the gradient makes them appropriate.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to horses. Although I live in a rural constituency, my lack of knowledge of these animals is considerable. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that there is a balance of opinion and I believe that the horse world is divided on the issue. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He obviously cares a great deal about this matter.
I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not responsible for the printing of the London Gazette. However, I recognise the important point he was making and I shall refer it to one of my hon. Friends.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) made useful points about parking on hard shoulders and giving way at


roundabouts. I cannot give him a clear answer now, but I have noted what he said.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: A number of people seem to be too idle to take their cars off the streets. They seem to believe that the streets were made for them alone. Will my hon. Friend consider legislation to prohibit people from using the street as a park for private cars or lorries, particularly when there are drives alongside houses and the people concerned are simply too idle to take their vehicles off the road? May we have something done to stop these people from hogging the roads?

Mr. Horam: It is the general impression that everyone may park outside his own house and has a perfect right to do so. That is not the case. There is some very bad behaviour and I shall look into my hon. Friend's suggestion. We do not want to go too far because of the massive number of regulations which would be needed to follow through his comments, and I do not want to make too many regulations. We already have a considerable number in relation to parking.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) made a number of points, with which we were all sympathetic, about disabled pedestrians, particularly at crossings. I take his point and remind him that we now have bleepers to help blind people on some pelican crossings. We are making some progress in that direction at least. I note my hon. Friend's suggestion that it would help disabled people if there were no kerbs at crossings.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) apologised to me for having to leave the debate. He made a valuable point about the length of the Highway Code, but the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) suggested various additional matters which it could include—and which would have lengthened it. This is the eternal dilemma with the Highway Code.
The hon. Member for Hallam suggested as a way out of this problem that some of the information about which he was understandably concerned should be made available to the public in another form. I draw his attention to the "Driving"

manual, a thicker document which includes some of the information to which he referred. There is a continual problem in trying to make the code short and simple while including all those items which we think appropriate.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I was referred to the manual when I first raised this matter 10 years ago, but I wonder how many drivers even know of its existence. I have an old copy in my library. I must now bring it up to date.

Mr. Horam: I think that the hon. Gentleman has made the case for part of the money to be spent on general road safety being expended on advertising the driving manual, which is an excellent document and well worth reading, although it is rather large.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I think that the point made by my hon. Friend about bus lanes is valid. This is a new important matter which should be explained. I never understood why a couple of inches of type and a picture needed to be given to parked ice cream vans. I should have thought the bus lanes were far more important.

Mr. Horam: I am not sure whether the amount of space we could save by missing out the item on parked ice cream vans would enable us to get in all that the hon. Gentleman wants about bus lanes, roundabouts, and so on. Nevertheless, I take the point.
The hon. Member for Hallam referred to international comparisons and asked what amount of consultation went on and whether international standards were broadly in line. There is considerable international consultation on road safety matters and the specific contents of highway codes. We are now broadly in line with other countries in this respect. Indeed, the tendency is for highway codes to become more similar as general knowledge increases, although there are idiosyncrasies from country to country.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I referred to the use of headlights. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman would prefer to answer that question on another occasion. Does he think that that matter should be dealt with in the code? It may be that he would prefer to answer that question later.

Mr. Horam: I should prefer to write to the hon. Gentleman about that. It raises a number of complex issues which I should not like to attempt to encapsulate in my remarks now. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall write to him.
The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made an interesting speech in which he indicated his special knowledge of driving instructors and made a number of useful suggestions, most of which I take on board. The legal position of and the demands made on the motorist which are now in the Highway Code will be continued. A section at the back will explain, in as simple terms as possible, the general legal position facing the motorist.
The hon. Member for Southgate made an extremely well-informed speech, taking in matters going back a number of years. I felt a positive tiro compared with the depth of knowledge he revealed and the number of points that he made. I counted no fewer than 25. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman counted them. They were extremely numerous. I know that, as he said, he will not expect me to speak to them all this evening. I shall write to him and cover as many as I can. It will be a long letter and it may be some time before it comes, but I shall endeavour to meet his points. I appreciate the serious interest shown by the hon. Gentleman.
The timing of the publication of the new code depends on it receiving approval in both Houses. We have to go to another place for consideration of these revised proposals. We shall then need approval of the ultimately revised text by both Houses. All I can say is that it will be at some stage in 1977. I cannot say more than that now.
Finally, I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their comments on the document. We have had a good example of the House of Commons, in a remarkably sane way after the earlier debates in this Chamber today, exercising its collective wisdom.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Paper on A Proposed New Highway Code.

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

9.45 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move,
That, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 3 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948, the maximum annual amounts of the periodical payments which may be made out of the House of Commons Members' Fund under the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939 as amended by the said Act of 1948 and by the Resolutions of the House of 17th November 1955, 7th March 1957, 17th May 1961, 9th March 1965, 4th May 1971, 1st August 1972, 29th November 1974 and 27th November 1975 be varied as from 1st December 1976 as follows:—
(a) for paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1939, as so amended, there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
'1. The annual amount of any periodical payment made to any person by virtue of his past membership of the House of Commons shall not exceed £970 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £1,765 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to length of service and need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £1,880 or such sum as, in their opinion, will bring his income up to £2,675 per annum, whichever is the less';
(b) for paragraph 2 of the said Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
'2. The annual amount of any periodical payment to any person by virtue of her being a widow of a past Member of the House of Commons shall not exceed £485 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring her income up to £1,280 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to her husband's length of service or to her need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £940 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring her income up to £1,735 per annum, whichever is the less';
(c) in paragraph 2A of the said Schedule for the words 'the annual amount of any periodical payment' to the end of the paragraph, there shall be substituted the words:—
'the annual amount of any periodical payment made to any such widower shall not exceed £485 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £1,280 per annum, whichever is the less:
Provided that if, having regard to his wife's length of service or to his needs, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £940 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees,


will bring his income up to £1,735 per annum, whichever is the less.'

I move this motion on behalf of the Trustees of the Members' Fund. It sets out clearly what the trustees propose, and I do not think there is any point in my taking up the time of the House in describing it in detail. I shall, of course answer any questions that are put to me.

At present, 58 ex-Members and widows are benefiting as a result of the fund. The total present income of the fund is £15,000 from Members' contributions, £15,000 from grant-in-aid, and interest of about £15,000, amounting altogether to £45,000. Under the proposals now before the House, whereby it is suggested that we increase the maximum amount that may be payable to any beneficiaries in the coming year, an additional £6,500 will be paid. That is roughly in conformity with the increase in the cost of living and the increase in payments that are made out of the contributory pension fund. As the House realises, every applicant for a grant from the Members' Fund has to state what his or her income is. Every case is considered on its merits, and the trustees of the fund do this carefully before making any grant.

It may interest the House to know what long lives ex-Members of the House and widows usually have. I was looking at recent figures, from which it appears that in the year ended 31st December 1975 there were six ex-Members aged between 85 and 90 and one between 90 and 95 and four widows between the ages of 90 and 95 who were getting some grant from the Members' Fund.

I do not think there is anything I need add to that. If any hon. Member wishes to ask questions about how we administer the fund or to ask relevant questions about where the money comes from, I shall be happy to provide answers. Other than that, I ask the House to accept the recommendaion of the trustees, who believe that the amounts now proposed are necessary to enable ex-Members and widows to live a reasonably comfortable life without suffering serious hardship. The amounts suggested are related to but do not conform exactly with the increase in pensions out of the contributory pensions fund, but we think that these are fair proposals and I invite the House to accept them.

Question put and agreed to.

CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER, AVON

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Terry Walker: The subject that I raise tonight is one that is of great concern to many councillors, teachers and parents living in the county of Avon, for when the chief education officer of a large county like Avon resigns it is a serious matter indeed, and it has aroused great public concern throughout the county.
Derrick Williams was a very conscientious and accessible chief education officer and was highly regarded by the teaching profession throughout the county. His resignation has brought to a head a serious crisis of corporate management throughout the county. Mr. Williams, explaining to the education committee why he was leaving to take up a lower-paid job, said he was not against corporate management but was against Avon's version of it. He said in his resignation speech:
I find too little corporate management and too many un-co-ordinated managers. I do not and cannot exercise the responsibilities the education committee and your schools and colleges expect of me and my departmental staff. The management of the education service is fragmented between so many committees and administrative departments of the council that there is no united or effective direction of it. The education committee cannot exercise that direction and nor can I…My work is concerned with practicalities and it disturbs me deeply that the consequences of your management system are being felt directly in your schools and colleges, which matter most; governors, managers, heads and principals are confused because they are serving so many masters.
Avon's version of the management structure is in our view wasteful and insensitive. The chief education officer is not free to get the confidence of heads or staff in the running of the schools system.
The teacher's representative on the education committee raised the matter of the functioning of the education committee and the education department at Avon House 18 months ago. He was ruled out of order by the chairman of the education committee who said that that was a matter for the full council. That was a way of sweeping things under the


carpet—until now, when the chief education officer has decided that he has no option other than to resign. He has done this not because he wanted to do so, but because he was not allowed to do his job. The row in Avon is all about who runs education within the county.
What is being complained about is the system in which it seems that every officer, department and committee in the hierachy is able to issue instructions direct to schools and to education staff dealing with details and basic principles without any reference to the chief education officer or the education committee. It is the chief education officer who should issue such instructions because of his special knowledge. He has the ability to interpret these matters.
There is nothing left in Avon for the chief education officer to do except deploy teachers. Whereas before headmasters dealt with the education committee and the chief education officer and his department, they must now deal with estate services, with the land and buildings committee, the county architect's department and the personnel department. They are inundated by letters and directives from these departments, and they have to cope with actions taken by people who have no knowledge of education and the way in which schools work. Many of these decisions take away the powers given to heads, governors and managers in the 1944 Education Act to deal with buildings and staff. There are so many masters that no one knows who is responsible for what.
There have been instances of builders arriving at schools that were in the middle of holding examinations. There have been instances of holes being dug in playgrounds or trees being chopped down without the school knowing anything about it. The head's management function makes him responsible for all staff within the school, yet the personnel department has taken away responsibility for all non-teaching staff. It has taken away control over the duties of caretakers and school meals staff.
The chief architects of Avon's corporate management system, the Conservative-controlled council, have so far maintained a stiff upper lip in this dispute. They have shown outward indifference

to the turmoil created by the resignation of the chief education officer. They are trying to pretend that there is nothing wrong. The chairman and the chief executive of Avon have behaved in a dictatorial manner over too many matters.
One such instance was the case of the careers advisory officer. In spite of recent legislation intended to reaffirm the close links between careers advice and education, because it is essential that this starts in schools, the chairman and the chief executive of Avon decided that the careers service should report to the community and leisure committee, which controls youth services. This decision was final, the chief education officer's hands were tied and he had to accept that ruling.
It is no wonder that the Society of Education Officers has issued a statement urging applicants who want to apply for the Avon job to get in touch with it before they do, because it is a serious situation. The chief education officer of Somerset, who is a member of the society's national executive, said:
We want discussions to establish that whoever succeeds Mr. Williams will be able to take full control of the education service.
The Bristol head teachers have also asked for an inquiry, and the Bristol Polytechnic Branch of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education has also called for a public inquiry into the system of corporate management in the county of Avon.
I have also had a letter from the western region of the association which says that it regrets,
the resignation of Mr. Derrick Williams, the Chief Education Officer for Avon, and is deeply concerned about the circumstances which have necessitated this important decision. The Branch places on record its appreciation of the work done by Mr. Williams over a period of years and wishes him well for the future. The Branch deplores the frustration, disillusionment and lowering of morale which increasingly pervades many sectors of public administration within the County, not least in the area of Education. In consequence, the Branch appeals to all local MPs to approach the appropriate Minister to institute an enquiry into the administration of the Avon Authority in general, and of the Education Department in particular.
It is no wonder that this kind of thing has happened because we have some excellent people in the education departments at Avon House, but they must have job descriptions. That has been


refused by the county council for a long time. If they are to stay with us, they must have these job descriptions.
As well as being a Member of Parliament, I am a parent in the county of Avon. It is important to me that the best man succeeds Derrick Williams as chief education officer. Therefore, the air must be cleared of all this suspicion of what has gone wrong. In my view an inquiry is the only way in which we can clear the air and put the matter straight.
As well as the matters that I have raised there have been some political overtones about what has happened in the county. The allocation of school places is made by the chief education officer of the education department. It has come to my notice, and has been brought to my notice, that the chairman of the education committee has seen fit to overrule the chief education officer with regard to the allocation of some places.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

Mr. Walker: One such case was that in which the chief education officer had ruled that a child must go to school in his catchment area. But the chairman of the education committee, on appeal and having pressure put on him by the local county councillor, who happens to be the prospective Conservative candidate for my constituency, upheld that resolution and overruled the chief education officer himself.
If that kind of thing is happening, if that kind of cheating is going on, with political overtones, it is little wonder that someone like Derrick Williams, who is completely divorced from these things, should choose to resign. It comes back in the end to the crucial rôle of the chief education officer. Mr. Williams asked the chief executive of the county of Avon a year ago for a definition of his rôle. Up to this time, there has been no response to that request.
In asking the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry into the reasons for the resignation of the chief education officer, I am deeply concerned that we get the right calibre of man to follow Mr. Williams.

We shall not get him unless the air is cleared by a public inquiry.
The ruling party in Avon, the Conservatives as they are now, have tended to run the whole county and the education department in particular as despots. They must be put in their place when they interfere in education.
The responsible people of Avon, the governors, headmasters, teachers and parents—I believe that pupils must be protected—are all concerned about the allegations which have been made and need to be assured that the new chief education officer will be allowed to take full control of the education services without interference. That is vital for all of us and we look to the Secretary of State to take action on our behalf.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Paul Dean: I am grateful in the few moments available to me for the opportunity to speak on this subject. It is as well to remember in the first instance that we are talking about a comparatively new county council which has had the mammoth task of welding together four constituent parts which previously had four different administrations.
That would have been a difficult task in the most favourable possible circumstances, but in the inevitable stresses and strains which result from cuts in public expenditure imposed by the Government those strains are bound to be greater. They are bound to be especially great when one is dealing with a service like education, which is both a big spender and a big employer and, therefore, vulnerable to rising costs and inflation and the other economic problems that the country faces. It is as well to remember that that is the background to this problem.
There is no doubt—on this point I agree with the hon. Member for Kings-wood (Mr. Walker)—that there is concern about the problems which have arisen with regard to the way in which corporate management has been operating in Avon. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman felt it necessary to criticise the chairman of the county council and the chief executive and to talk about a stiff upper lip attitude. That sort of approach, with the political overtones that the hon. Gentleman introduced, is


not likely to contribute to the satisfactory solution of the problem which we all wish to see. The county council understands this concern and shares it. It is anxious to deal with the problems which have arisen and to find the right solutions to them.
I cannot in the brief time available to me follow the hon. Gentleman in his detailed arguments, but I wish to comment briefly on the appeal he made to the Under-Secretary of State for an inquiry by the Department of Education and Science into the reasons for the resignation of the chief education officer. I feel sure that any advice or help that the Department can give will be welcomed, but I suggest that the problems which have arisen are primarily a matter for the county council.
The county council is responsible for administering the service in the county against the background of Government policy, and it is appropriate that the county council should resolve these problems in the light of the knowledge it has. I am sure, too, that before coming to a clear view on the right way forward the county council will wish to discuss the matter with the new chief education officer when he is appointed by the education committee and to get his views as to what changes are appropriate. I hope that, in considering the appeal that has been put to her. the Under-Secretary of State will remember these points, in particular that the primary responsibility here lies with the county council.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) and I are much interested, because of our constituency responsibilities, in the affairs of the county council. Is not much of the difficulty that Councillor Gervas Walker combines the functions of chairman and leader of the majority party? No man should take so much power to himself.

Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view on that. I do not intend to comment on the detailed way in which the duly elected county council carries out its responsibilities; it would be inappropriate for me to do so. It is a matter for the county council to

decide, and we shall not assist in the proper resolution of the problem by making detailed criticism or trying to persuade the Department to exercise responsibilities that properly lie with the county council.
I hope that any advice and assistance that the Under-Secretary of State can offer to the county council will be made available. I hope that she will also recognise—and will say so in response to this debate—that this is primarily a matter for the county council to resolve and that she believes that it firmly intends to do just that.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I wish to make a brief intervention in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) in his appeal to the Secretary of State for Education and Science to conduct an inquiry into the situation in the county of Avon.
It has been suggested that my hon. Friend was asking for an inquiry simply and solely into the resignation of the chief education officer of the county of Avon. I think that his brief went further than that. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree—and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) will also agree—that what is needed is an inquiry into the whole educational set-up in the county of Avon and also into the question of corporate management. I have never been a great supporter of the concept of corporate management. Since the presentation of the Bains Report a good deal of discussions has taken place about this matter, but it appears that the subject of corporate management has thrown up far greater problems in Avon than it has ever solved. Therefore, what is required is a more comprehensive inquiry than simply an inquiry into the reasons why the chief education officer resigned.
Representations have also been made to me from teachers in higher and further education and from teachers in other education sectors, as well as from parents and those who are directly responsible for the schools at the grass roots. I believe that in the past the record of Bristol City Council in educational terms was second to none. However, since the reorganisation of local government and


since the advent of corporate management, with all that that implies, I am afraid that the education service has deteriorated and morale is being undermined. Larger problems lie ahead. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will initiate a comprehensive and detailed inquiry into the situation.

10.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): The concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) about the effectiveness of education in his constituency and in the county of Avon in general is well known, as indeed is the concern of other hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. Therefore, it is very much a matter of regret for us all that the occasion for this debate is the resignation of the chief education officer for Avon.
As I understand the situation, my hon. Friend initiated this debate largely to examine the reasons behind this resignation. As has become clear, the chief education officer set out his reasons in his resignation statement. He said that the management pattern adopted by the county council hindered the efficient organisation of the education service. While not dissenting from the principle of corporate management, he believed that in Avon neither the education committee nor he could exercise effective direction of the educational service because of fragmentation of its management. He recognised, however, the responsibility of the county council—a responsibility which the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) sought to highlight—to decide the management system and how it operated, and he recognised that, since he felt unable to operate effectively within that system, it was best for him to resign.
As my hon. Friend has explained, the new county of Avon covers an area previously served by four separate local authorities—Bristol, Bath, and parts of Somerset and Gloucestershire. The task of the local education authority and its officers in creating a single education service for a population of 1 million would have been considerable even if finance had not been a problem. To have had to do so against a background of increas-

ing financial stringency has inevitably imposed great strains on the officers and members of the authority. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that in the authority, among education officers and in the schools themselves considerable bewilderment and frustration have been engendered by what has taken place there.
However, as the hon. Member for Somerset, North said, there is no question but that management within local government is a local responsibility and is a matter for local decision, a decision which the chief education officer recognised when he chose to resign rather than work within it. But it is legitimate for the House to consider whether provision of an effective education system is helped or hindered by the system of management adopted by local government.
The Bains Report was surely correct in concluding that
there is no one perfect system of management in local government, any more than in any other sphere of activity. The needs and priorities of individual areas differ widely; they will change from time to time and local government administration must be sufficiently flexible and adaptive to meet those changing needs.
The criticism of corporate management in itself seems mainly to be of its application. It is true that throughout the country chief education officers have had a particularly difficult time with, as I have said, the introduction of corporate management into new local areas at a time of severe financial stringency. Since education accounts for the largest part of a local authority's budget, it is inevitable that it will come in for close scrutiny, and officers will have to spend a substantial part of their time seeking to justify this expenditure to bodies other than the education committee.
This could well be so whatever form of management is adopted. I am aware that several chief education officers have expressed their strong concern about possible damage to the education service which the application of corporate management might be causing.
In Avon itself, Mr. Williams's resignation statement has led to several groups expressing their concern to the county council about the way in which corporate management is being applied within the authority. Under the system of devolved responsibility which we have, it must be


for the council and its chief executive to consider, in the light of that expressed concern and the examples of problems referred to by my hon. Friend, whether there is a need, perhaps an urgent need, to review the system's operation in Avon.
I much regret, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and, I believe, all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, that the chief education officer of Avon has felt unable to continue in his post. The appointment of a new chief education officer and any reassessment of the application of corporate management in Avon which the county council may make will give an opportunity for a fresh start in Avon on the task of running an education service in a manner which will effectively promote the best interests of all its citizens.
Two of my hon. Friends have asked for a public inquiry to be conducted by the Department of Education and Science. There are two aspects of this matter which concern me. One is that it is not altogether clear what power the Department has to conduct a public inquiry. I shall look into this question and, with his permission, write to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood.
Secondly, it occurs to me that, in so far as the whole question of the resignation of the chief education officer is involved with the question of corporate management, this may be regarded as a matter not merely for the Department of Education and Science. On both those points I shall make further inquiry and write to my hon. Friend. Like him, I express my regret and concern that we have had to have this debate tonight in such unhappy circumstances.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. John Cope: I had not intended to intervene, but as a few minutes remain I wish to say a few words since my constituents also are affected. The Minister was right to point out in the earlier part of her speech that the real reason for the debate was not to press for an inquiry itself but to open up a discussion on the reasons for the resignation of the chief education officer. It is true also that if the hon. Member for Bristol. North-West (Mr. Thomas) wanted

a wider inquiry, as he appeared to do, this debate should have been addressed not to the Department of Education and Science but to the Minister responsible for local government, as the Minister herself pointed out.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I accept that if I were asking for an inquiry into the whole matter of corporate management, that would not be for the Department of Education and Science; but as I asked for an inquiry in terms of education and its provision in Avon, I think that it is a matter for my hon. Friend's Department.

Mr. Cope: The hon. Gentleman went on to criticise the chairman of the council, who is also leader of the majority group. That may or may not be a valid criticism; it is a matter for the council to decide. This House would be offended, rightly, if other bodies attempted to interfere in the way we chose the Chairmen of our Committees, but the Chairman of one of our Committees is in much the same position in carrying out his duties as is the chairman of a council committee.
The hon. Member made clear that he does not support corporate management. But Mr. Williams made clear that he supported the system, although not the version being applied in Avon in the education service. It is a matter for the council to decide the system of management it is to operate, not only in education but in other matters.
We are discussing devolution a great deal nowadays. It would be intolerable for this House, having devolved powers to other bodies—in this case, a county council—to attempt to interfere with them in carrying out the tasks that the House had set them. We do not lay down in advance the way in which such bodies should carry out their tasks, and we should not attempt to interfere afterwards. But it is not uncharacteristic of the Labour Party that it should wish Whitehall to interfere in the way in which the education service is run in Avon. Today we have been discussing other methods of interference from Whitehall in the ways in which education is run.
There is a case for centralised management by the authority as a whole of the three principal areas in education—personnel, plans, building and maintenance, and financial control, particularly the


latter. It is true that the education committee has overspent considerably on the budget allocated by the county council, and that is a serious matter which the council itself needs to take into account, particularly at this time. I am sure that the Government would not dissent from that view. Public money is not easily come by at this time, and it is difficult for county councils and the Government to decide the priorities within the funds available.
The Avon County Council must be able to make this decision, and it is then up to its various committees to see that their services are carried out to the best advantage with the money available. It is important that the personnel services should be handled centrally. There is at least a strong case for that. We should rightly criticise if we discovered that clerks in the education department, for example, were being paid or treated differently from those in other branches of the council who were doing similar jobs. The same applies to the maintenance of land and buildings.
There is a very good example in the constituency of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) of the way in which corporate management works together to solve problems. In the summer holidays this year Kingsfield School was burned down. All the stops were pulled out by the county council, not least of all by the chairman, who was criticised earlier tonight, in order to get

the school reopened by the beginning of the autumn term. In just four weeks temporary buildings were provided and the whole thing got under way again, so that by the start of the autumn term the school was able to function.

Mr. Terry Walker: What has that to do with corporate management? This sort of thing has been done before. It happened long before the hon. Member ever came to the South-West.

Mr. Cope: The hon. Member says that it had happened before. The example I gave was much more recent, and it reflects creditably on the areas in which the county council worked together. The council got the school reopened. The hon. Member is entitled to his opinion, but in my view that reflects well on corporate management.
There is a case at least to be made for central management of these three functions from the education service. It is for the county council to decide the way in which it will organise its affairs and organise the system which it has a duty to run. It would be a mistake for the Department to set up an inquiry of this kind and attempt to interfere with the way in which this is done, and I am glad that the Minister replied as she did.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.